[piotrSikora]

I disagree. It's much, much easier to support SCTP (since it's already provided by the operating system) than it is to support SPDY with all the server pushes, etc.

But to be honest, I don't know what was the source of such comparison... It's apples to oranges.

[mbelshe]

SCTP is not available on Windows by default, and you need administrative privileges to deploy it. I'm not trying to start an OS war debate, but this is a very practical problem.

Mobile, oddly enough, may be the best route to bring both IPv6 and SCTP to life.

[piotrSikora]

Good point... But we were talking about servers ;)

[bostonvaulter2]

Wouldn't SCTP need to be installed on both the client and the server?

[piotrSikora]

Yes (for adoption) and no (for having server support).

But those are two very different problems ;)

[mbelshe]

Heh - I didn't think a server side SCTP implementation was very interesting if you don't have clients to use it.

[rfugger]

The source of the comparison is that the main thrust of both SCTP and SPDY is multiplexing multiple independent data streams on a single connection.

[piotrSikora]

Is is, really? For me multiplexing is just nice addition to SPDY.

Personally, I consider "server pushes" as the main feature and "full encryption and compression" as nice improvements.

[Lennie]

Well, the primary reason for the existence of SPDY is encryption everywhere and speed. Something which with current HTTP/HTTPS doesn't really exist. HTTPS is still slower than HTTP and HTTP is slower than SPDY.

A lot of the speed increase comes from the use of multiplexing. So without it, it wouldn't be able to achieve most of it's goals.