|
|
|
|
|
by jeroenhd
153 days ago
|
|
I kinda wonder what the packet loss story of UDP is like for simple protocols like these in the modern day. Clearly, it's good enough that this application runs without issue. > Instead of bolting TLS onto every application protocol (HTTP, MQTT, CoAP, etc.), what if we secure the network layer once and then use simple protocols on top? IPSec, coming back with a vengeance! This also makes me wonder what takes less space in ROM, a basic WireGuard implementation or a basic, stripped-down IPSec implementation (with only the ciphers and configuration necessary for the server compiled in). WireGuard has the advantage of being designed for simplicity, but IPSec has its 90s every-cycle-counts legacy that a lot of modern software has ignored since. |
|
For one it can adequately show if your WiFi is performing well...
In a home network setting I've got a UDP display sink (64x64px, RGB) with a custom protocol. It works fine-- no hard number as the performance varies based on other factors, including congestion. I've been able to push it to >90fps, but around 42fps there is virtually no flicker.
For context in my protocol I use all 512bytes, with 3 first being the "line number and such" data and the rest containing ~128 pixels.