This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/mat-wg@ripe.net/

[mat-wg] followup question from MAT-WG presentation on

Previous message (by thread): [mat-wg] followup question from MAT-WG presentation on

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Benno Overeinder benno at NLnetLabs.nl
Wed Oct 28 22:45:12 CET 2020

Hi Raffaele,

On 28/10/2020 19:25, Raffaele Zullo wrote:
>   Other than the paths tested in our work, they also work for example in 
> mobile networks (obviously not all of them) where it is very hard that 
> transports other than TCP or UDP work.

Good to hear!

>   The MPTCP approach you pointed is very interesting and I would say the 
> similar thing for UDP-O is that UDP-O is still UDP (like MPTCP is still 
> TCP) so it can traverse quite easily except for the cases in which there 
> is a length consistency check.
> 
>   I think mostly depends on the applications using UDP-O. If there will 
> be some strong use cases for UDP-O (for example DNSSEC) we could 
> probably see UDP-O deployed.

I am certainly interested in how it develops and is used in 
applications.  I will keep an eye on UDP-O standardisation and deployment.

Cheers,

-- Benno


-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

Previous message (by thread): [mat-wg] followup question from MAT-WG presentation on

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ mat-wg Archives ]