At 09:34 AM 11/3/97 -0500, David P. Reed wrote: >UDP does NOT have 'connections'. It is NOT required, and was NEVER >intended that a UDP datagram must be part of a 'session' set up by some >kind of initial datagram from the person 'opening' the 'session'. That may >be a common use, but it is not the only use, and such a restriction was not >intended in the original design. It's a peculiar rewrite of history to say >(as one correspondent did) that Quake violates a rule of UDP by >transmitting addresses in data portions of datagrams. That rule is not a >UDP rule, but a NAT-compatibility limitation - a case where NAT does not >work. But NAT-compatibility is not a requirement for Internet protocols - >to the contrary, IP is an end-to-end protocol, and the IP spec says that >certain parts of the IP datagram are to be delivered unchanged (and that >includes the address fields). That NAT happens to work at all is a lucky >accident. Ahaluha! Amen brother. ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <<A HREF="http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq">http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq</A>> </PRE> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <HR> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg10389.html">Re: (ASCEND) Quake/QW and Pipeline 75 and NAT</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg10386.html">Re: (ASCEND) P130 Performance?</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg10374.html">Re: (ASCEND) Quake/QW and Pipeline 75 and NAT</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg10389.html">Re: (ASCEND) Quake/QW and Pipeline 75 and NAT</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="maillist.html#10387"><STRONG>Main</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thrd226.html#10387"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> </BODY> </HTML>