5 ms·
I disagree. It's much, much easier to support SCTP (since it's already provided by the operating system) than it is to support SPDY with all the server pushes,
by piotrSikora 16y ago
I disagree. It's much, much easier to support SCTP (since it's already provided by the operating system) than it is to support SPDY with all the server pushes, etc.
But to be honest, I don't know what was the source of such comparison... It's apples to oranges.
- rfugger 16y agoThe source of the comparison is that the main thrust of both SCTP and SPDY is multiplexing multiple independent data streams on a single connection.
- piotrSikora 16y agoIs is, really? For me multiplexing is just nice addition to SPDY. Personally, I consider "server pushes" as the main feature and "full encryption and compression" as nice improvements.
- Lennie 16y agoWell, the primary reason for the existence of SPDY is encryption everywhere and speed. Something which with current HTTP/HTTPS doesn't really exist. HTTPS is still slower than HTTP and HTTP is slower than SPDY. A lot of the speed increase comes from the use of multiplexing. So without it, it wouldn't be able to achieve most of it's goals.
- mbelshe 16y agoSCTP is not available on Windows by default, and you need administrative privileges to deploy it. I'm not trying to start an OS war debate, but this is a very practical problem. Mobile, oddly enough, may be the best route to bring both IPv6 and SCTP to life.
- piotrSikora 16y agoGood point... But we were talking about servers ;)
- bostonvaulter2 16y agoWouldn't SCTP need to be installed on both the client and the server?
- piotrSikora 16y agoYes (for adoption) and no (for having server support). But those are two very different problems ;)
- mbelshe 16y agoHeh - I didn't think a server side SCTP implementation was very interesting if you don't have clients to use it.