summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/54/b6278cba900886811d5dd29245e5cbd3f242af
blob: f09f6416a65b09606af999bafbfa3a21e6456dfe (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jayf@outlook.com>) id 1UJZFO-0007qO-Os
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:57:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of outlook.com
	designates 65.55.111.163 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=65.55.111.163; envelope-from=jayf@outlook.com;
	helo=blu0-omc4-s24.blu0.hotmail.com; 
Received: from blu0-omc4-s24.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.111.163])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1UJZFN-00081A-Qm for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:57:18 +0000
Received: from BLU0-SMTP30 ([65.55.111.137]) by blu0-omc4-s24.blu0.hotmail.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); 
	Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:57:12 -0700
X-EIP: [Io14VoHS11DZnT24wrlvNyeF+XTIpehg]
X-Originating-Email: [jayf@outlook.com]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP30A4EFEB3349A94802E930C8D60@phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.1.15] ([67.189.14.219]) by BLU0-SMTP30.phx.gbl over
	TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); 
	Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:57:10 -0700
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:57:09 -0700
From: Jay F <jayf@outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <CA+8xBpe9D=poPyJ=soGdN3sovqdmvyGGij6FM8PHYGUB5aUkzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACh7GpFqZtWVQFjM-w1uoB+74sVvE=_mXwBQ4P-qGMp2=HJ_yQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACh7GpFqZtWVQFjM-w1uoB+74sVvE=_mXwBQ4P-qGMp2=HJ_yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2013 00:57:11.0024 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[84183700:01CE282A]
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(jayf[at]outlook.com)
	-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
	no trust [65.55.111.163 listed in list.dnswl.org]
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	0.0 MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER  Message-Id was added by a relay
X-Headers-End: 1UJZFN-00081A-Qm
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:57:18 -0000

My first concern was that I and about everyone else only has TCP/UDP 
port forwarding, but at least for the first:

UDT uses UDP to transfer bulk data with its own reliability control and 
congestion control mechanisms. Multiple UDT flows can share a single UDP 
port, thus a firewall can open only one UDP port for all UDT connections.

The latter appears not so friendly to NAT.


On 3/23/2013 3:30 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> If you're considering a datagram protocol, you might be interested in 
> some more modern alternatives to UDP:
>
> UDT: Breaking the Data Transfer Bottleneck
> http://udt.sourceforge.net/
>
> Stream Control Transmission Protocol
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol
>
>
>