3 ms·
Just a small correction for anyone else following along. This: > UDP for RTP makes sense because transmitting packets is pointless Should be this: > UDP for
by bradleyland 12y ago
Just a small correction for anyone else following along. This:
> UDP for RTP makes sense because transmitting packets is pointless
Should be this:
> UDP for RTP makes sense because retransmitting packets is pointless
TCP will retransmit if no ACK is received; UDP won't (there being no ACK and all).
- ay 12y agoAt the same time, beware of "helpful" lower layer protocols. Mobile wireless stuff (EDGE/3G) is going to great lengths to avoid dropping packets, so if you get conditions right (moving train in the areas with poor coverage is one place where you can easily see this), you can get the packets "reliably delivered" in 20 seconds and more.
- spb 12y agoThis really bugs me. It seems like they should be leaving the retransmission to TCP.
- rix0r 12y agoWell, yes and no. TCP has been designed in such a way that it interprets packet drops as a sign of "congestion" (which was typically true in ye olden days of purely wired networking), and it will start sending less data in response. Whereas in wireless networking, occasional packet drops are just a fact of life and are not indicative of competing flows trying to share the channel. So it actually makes [some] sense that wireless protocols try to compensate for the behaviour of the transport protocol used by 90% of all data: TCP.