 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What protocol is more suitable for chatting program</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/what-protocol-is-more-suitable-for-chatting-program/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/what-protocol-is-more-suitable-for-chatting-program/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 05:05:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: petkoa</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/what-protocol-is-more-suitable-for-chatting-program/#comment-79995</link>
		<dc:creator>petkoa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:17:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-79995</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;I’d expect to run into it outside of academia as well.&lt;/i&gt;

May be - I hoped rules about software allowed on personnel notebooks should be better defined in non-academic environments :o)).

&lt;i&gt;I’d also, however, wonder about the eventual consequences to bandwidth of forcing all UDP to be converted to TCP. It seems like it would eventually defeat any purpose involving conservation of bandwidth. &lt;/i&gt;

TCP is not only about acknowledgment of packets arrival and retransmission of lost packets, it is  much more about self-regulation - if a peer (in TCP connection) doesn&#039;t receive couple of ACK&#039;s, it decreases the rate of sending and this is built in the OS TCP stack, not in torrent (or any other) client. So a fall-back to TCP really alleviates the bandwidth problem even without any traffic shaping (btw, the first time I experienced the UDP problem and its TCP alleviation was about 12yrs ago, when a guy in our campus &quot;experimented&quot; with an outbound X11-session over 119 Kbit line and saturated it... after being warned and some bitching about our &quot;mostly incoming activity&quot; he switched to ssh X11 forwarding, and problem was solved).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I’d expect to run into it outside of academia as well.</i></p>
<p>May be &#8211; I hoped rules about software allowed on personnel notebooks should be better defined in non-academic environments <img src='http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_surprised.gif' alt=':o' class='wp-smiley' /> )).</p>
<p><i>I’d also, however, wonder about the eventual consequences to bandwidth of forcing all UDP to be converted to TCP. It seems like it would eventually defeat any purpose involving conservation of bandwidth. </i></p>
<p>TCP is not only about acknowledgment of packets arrival and retransmission of lost packets, it is  much more about self-regulation &#8211; if a peer (in TCP connection) doesn&#8217;t receive couple of ACK&#8217;s, it decreases the rate of sending and this is built in the OS TCP stack, not in torrent (or any other) client. So a fall-back to TCP really alleviates the bandwidth problem even without any traffic shaping (btw, the first time I experienced the UDP problem and its TCP alleviation was about 12yrs ago, when a guy in our campus &#8220;experimented&#8221; with an outbound X11-session over 119 Kbit line and saturated it&#8230; after being warned and some bitching about our &#8220;mostly incoming activity&#8221; he switched to ssh X11 forwarding, and problem was solved).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tomliotta</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/what-protocol-is-more-suitable-for-chatting-program/#comment-79973</link>
		<dc:creator>tomliotta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-79973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Now, from a sysadmin point of view... at least in an academic environment like ours...&lt;/i&gt;

I&#039;d expect to run into it outside of academia as well.

I&#039;d also, however, wonder about the eventual consequences to bandwidth of forcing all UDP to be converted to TCP. It seems like it would eventually defeat any purpose involving conservation of bandwidth. Maybe not.

Anyway, I definitely agree with keeping TCP fall-back in mind. That especially depends upon the environment within which the application must run. It&#039;s one thing to create an app that&#039;s intended for local users; it can be very different when there are totally unknown network segments to cross.

Tom]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Now, from a sysadmin point of view&#8230; at least in an academic environment like ours&#8230;</i></p>
<p>I&#8217;d expect to run into it outside of academia as well.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d also, however, wonder about the eventual consequences to bandwidth of forcing all UDP to be converted to TCP. It seems like it would eventually defeat any purpose involving conservation of bandwidth. Maybe not.</p>
<p>Anyway, I definitely agree with keeping TCP fall-back in mind. That especially depends upon the environment within which the application must run. It&#8217;s one thing to create an app that&#8217;s intended for local users; it can be very different when there are totally unknown network segments to cross.</p>
<p>Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: petkoa</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/what-protocol-is-more-suitable-for-chatting-program/#comment-79958</link>
		<dc:creator>petkoa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-79958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, historically, talk - maybe the first p2p chat, was UDP-based; a way more advanced IRC is TCP-based... Choice is yours

Now, from a  sysadmin point of view - recently, torrent clients switched to UDP and, at least in an academic environment like ours , several student&#039;s notebooks are able to saturate the outgoing link. So now, all UDP except DNS (p. 53) and NTP (p. 123) is forbidden and torrent clients (un?)happily fall-back to TCP. In such environment an UDP-based chat program will not work in spite its traffic requirements are very small (e.g., all-UDP based old Skype clients are not working; newer, which can fall-back to TCP are operative) .

So, if you decide to have UDP functionality, better make a provision for TCP fall-back.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, historically, talk &#8211; maybe the first p2p chat, was UDP-based; a way more advanced IRC is TCP-based&#8230; Choice is yours</p>
<p>Now, from a  sysadmin point of view &#8211; recently, torrent clients switched to UDP and, at least in an academic environment like ours , several student&#8217;s notebooks are able to saturate the outgoing link. So now, all UDP except DNS (p. 53) and NTP (p. 123) is forbidden and torrent clients (un?)happily fall-back to TCP. In such environment an UDP-based chat program will not work in spite its traffic requirements are very small (e.g., all-UDP based old Skype clients are not working; newer, which can fall-back to TCP are operative) .</p>
<p>So, if you decide to have UDP functionality, better make a provision for TCP fall-back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rajeshu</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/what-protocol-is-more-suitable-for-chatting-program/#comment-79950</link>
		<dc:creator>rajeshu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:06:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-79950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[thank 4 ur clarification friend]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thank 4 ur clarification friend</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rajeshu</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/what-protocol-is-more-suitable-for-chatting-program/#comment-79910</link>
		<dc:creator>rajeshu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-79910</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[thank u friend,
I also referred many websites reg this and i found its TCP in most of them.
I would like to know why TCP is preferred rather than UDP.
I&#039;ll be glad if someone clarifies this think]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thank u friend,<br />
I also referred many websites reg this and i found its TCP in most of them.<br />
I would like to know why TCP is preferred rather than UDP.<br />
I&#8217;ll be glad if someone clarifies this think</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 6/9 queries in 0.013 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 328/331 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-05-22 07:20:27 -->