Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> No, the difference is that after connection, the rest of the
> session/conversation can be handled by another thread/process/cpu with
> TCP. You can't do that with UDP since there is no way to know at the
> kernel/driver level what logical process an incoming UDP packet is bound
> for.
Oh, you mean once conversations have started and you want to maintain
state? Well, either keep the table of
which-process-handled-which-conversation in the master process, or use the
master process purely as a broker which replies (on conversation
setup) with a destination port to use that points to the correct child. In
practice, though, if you actually want a stateful conversation like that,
straight UDP probably *isn't* for you!
I'd like RDP resurrected. It strikes me that RDP can be implemented in
userland on top of UDP (which is, at heart, a controlled gateway to IP
itself)... that might be worth examining.
ABS
--
Alaric B. Snell
http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software
|
