[JoeAltmaier]

Absolutely not. UDP delivers packets as received.

Don't underestimate how often packets are received out of order. There's even a consumer DSL modem that swaps every odd UDP packet with every even one - I had to compensate for this in a VOIP product. Using TCP in this bastardized way would cure that. That said, I tend to agree its a poor idea to use TCP in this way. The famous book on IP used to list 8 protocol possibilities (only 2 commonly survive today, UDP and TCP) of which streaming and packet reordering was a valid combination (without acking/retransmitting). Don't know what it was called, but that's what being attempted here.

[ramzyo]

I think we’re operating on different definitions of in-order and as received. TCP delivers packets in order, but perhaps not as received, if it had to request retransmission of a dropped packet. UDP delivers packets in order that they were received. Doing what the article suggests would make TCP also deliver packets in the order that they were received. No?

[JoeAltmaier]

TCP won't nack a packet when one is perceived as 'missed' (but really out-of-order); that's clear from the premise (ack everything).

But reordering also happens simply by examining received packets in a burst, and putting them right.

So its six of one and a half-dozen of the other I guess. Sorry for coming off so abrupt.

[ramzyo]

No problem, thanks for clarifying! So basically the benefit to the TCP NACK approach is that the TCP layer will also do a sort on the packets received?

[JoeAltmaier]

Yeah, which is imperfect but there you are. It means sometimes out-of-order packets will be reordered, and sometimes dropped (since TCP acked it, the (existing) TCP code will discard the out-of-order packet as 'duplicate'. Which turns out works pretty well in practice, since out-of-order are almost always in a burst (no delay inter-packet)