3 ms·
Why not a store-and-forward architecture? You still need a protocol for point to point and maybe that's where QUIC plays a role, but wouldn't make more sense t
by juancn 11mo ago
Why not a store-and-forward architecture?
You still need a protocol for point to point and maybe that's where QUIC plays a role, but wouldn't make more sense to use something like email?
The distances and latencies are so large, that you want to send a file to the next hop in the network, and from there to the next one, and so on.
- monocasa 11mo agoThat is the underlying consensus currently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking
- throw0101c 11mo agoAlso: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dtn/about/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dtn/about/
- justin66 11mo agoI found it baffling the extent to which the article and the stuff it linked to did not discuss the current state of the art.
- wofo 11mo agoI think the idea is to store-and-forward IP packets, then use QUIC on top of that
- Marlinski 11mo agoThis is the actual standardized approach with the dtn protocol: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4838 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4838 It makes no sense to use a protocol where the source is the one responsible for taking care of retransmission when the network spans accross minutes/hours of delay.