aspadistra Posted September 12, 2008 Report Posted September 12, 2008 Support for TCP-Illinois would be a plus, although I don't know that BT has packet loss issues as such. For people with individual connections with HOPS > 15 it might be useful.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP-Illinoishttp://www.princeton.edu/~shaoliu/tcpillinois/index.htmlTCP-Illinois is a variant of TCP congestion control protocol, developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It is especially targeted at high-speed, long-distance networks. A sender side modification to the standard TCP congestion control algorithm, it achieves a higher average throughput than the standard TCP, allocates the network resource fairly as the standard TCP, is compatible with the standard TCP, and provides incentives for TCP users to switch.
thelittlefire Posted September 12, 2008 Report Posted September 12, 2008 Uhm, bittorrent isn't based for speeds,I believe it was designed for low speed high latency networks.
Switeck Posted September 12, 2008 Report Posted September 12, 2008 TCP changes are low-level OS drivers. uTorrent doesn't patch that deep...and definitely SHOULDN'T be hacking system drivers!
Ultima Posted September 12, 2008 Report Posted September 12, 2008 @thelittlefire: Not really Speed and latency have nothing to do with the rationale behind BitTorrent... it just so happens that speed was secondary to minimizing initial seeder bandwidth load when it was designed. How or what transport protocol it uses is inconsequential.
Harold Posted September 12, 2008 Report Posted September 12, 2008 µTorrent wouldn't have to hack into anything thoughIt could use a raw socket and implement TCP itselfBut of course that would be more trouble than it's worth
Switeck Posted September 12, 2008 Report Posted September 12, 2008 Raw socket option isn't available for most Windows platforms without a seriously ugly hack or deep driver rewrites/replacements.
Harold Posted September 13, 2008 Report Posted September 13, 2008 They're available in XP pre SP2, Windows server 2003 and 2008, and anything earlier than XP according to MSDN (obviously, that doesn't mean they actually are)On XP SP2/3 and Vista they're pretty much broken but then you could still go with "TCP over UDP" which adds a couple of bytes overhead (but since no one is going to actually implement this it doesn't matter at all)
Firon Posted September 13, 2008 Report Posted September 13, 2008 It'd be a new protocol at this point.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.