Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible
by tptacek on Thursday October 30, 2025 @03:46PM
(#45764456)
I'd argue that DNS has an implicit transport protocol by dint of the QIDs. It's a very simple transport! But that's the point, right.
Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible
by ekr____ on Thursday October 30, 2025 @04:07PM
(#45764718)
I think we agree here: protocols built on top of UDP often build their own ad hoc reliability layer, as opposed to having an explicit one like TCP, QUIC, or SCTP.
Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible
by juliusdavies on Thursday October 30, 2025 @05:38PM
(#45765689)
SIP still has a reliability layer built on top: the humans will say “I didn’t catch that, can you repeat yourself?“ on the video call.
Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible
by jeroenhd on Friday October 31, 2025 @05:18AM
(#45769941)
More so than that, SIP itself has a ACK system to resend dropped packets or report failures.
The RTP part will carry the "can you repeat that" part, unless you're sending DM's over SIP INFO messages.
In all fairness, though, there are quite a few application protocols which are built directly on top of UDP with no explicit intermediate transport layer. DNS, RTP, and even sometimes SIP come immediately to mind.