Circle's net protocol

From: Big Daddy (gww6e@EROLS.COM)
Date: 11/08/97

I have been toying with this idea, and I'm asking you guys from some input:
        What are the pros and cons of redoing circle to make use of UDP?  I'm a
network/software engineer, and may be because I use UDP, I can't take that
objective "step back" and see the flaws, but I feel as though a good case could
be made.
UDP would allow:
*multicast communications
*streaming (which could lead to some really cool stuff)
*vastly reduced network overhead
        I realize that in heavy lag conditions you'd lose a lot of packets, but we've
all heard the excuse "I didn't see it -- it scrolled by too fast after I
unfroze from lag." leading me to believe that lost data packets would not
severely impact the majority of players.  If a player wishes to see all that
info, then there is no reason why the burden can't be shifted to the client
side of the house.  In fact, UDP can be configured to fire off variable byte
size packets depending on network latency (many small packets in high lag,
fewer giant packets in light lag -- a synced buffering system comes to mind).
 Of course, nanny.c and the extraction rules would need to be retooled for this
to even begin to be possible (not to mention clients), but that's why I'm
asking you guys for suggestions. Someone tell me this is a bad, bad idea. :)
        And to anyone that still considers UDP to be TCP's poor cousin and not robust
enough to handle a mud, take a look at NFS -- its UDP :)


     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST