in reply to Re^6: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET
in thread UDP server with IO::Socket::INET

No, I'm saying that it is possible to detect missing clients with ICMP but a much better alternative would be an existing explicit connection protocol, such as multicast.

Update: I realized too late that multicast doesn't actually use explicit connections but that's part of the beauty of multicast.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 05, 2010 at 16:30 UTC

    Ok, so your suggestion that multicast is an alternative to ICMP is wrong. You need some kind of connection and disconnection mechanism whether or not multicasting is used.

    Note that I don't think ICMP would even work as a disconnection mechanism. It will only tell you whether the machine is reachable (and might not even do that with firewalls), not if a UDP port is reachable.

    but that's part of the beauty of multicast.

    It's part of the beauty of UDP, as it is what allows multicast to exist.

[reply]
      Ok, so your suggestion that multicast is an alternative to ICMP is wrong. You need some kind of connection and disconnection mechanism whether or not multicasting is used.

      What the fuck are you rambling on about now? Multicast explicitly does NOT require the server to know ANYTHING about the clients. You're just twisting my words to prove that you're smart and I'm dumb. Go away troll.

[reply]

        No, it's simply a question that I don't quite know how it works. I'm going from what you said, and you told me that defunct clients don't get dropped from a multicast group automatically. That means a disconnection mechanism is needed. Was I misinformed?

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom