[ENet-discuss] unreliable vs. reliable packets

Lee Salzman lsalzman1 at cox.net
Thu Aug 10 07:26:39 PDT 2006

Neither. In terms of mechanics, unsequenced packets get a subsequence 

So if the last reliable packet sent out had sequence number 2, then the 
next unreliable packet gets sequence number 2.1, unreliable packet after 
that gets 2.2, etc. The next reliable packet sent out will have sequence 
number 3. It will get delivered IFF packets 1 and 2 have been delivered, 
but it doesn't care whether or not 2.1 and 2.2 got there.


Jonas Christian Drewsen wrote:
> Hi,
>     I have a question about using reliabel and unreliable packets on the 
> same channel. As I understand it from the features web page: A reliable 
> packet received will be delayed for delivery until every packet with 
> lower sequence number has arrived on the same channel. But what if one 
> of the packets with lower sequence numbers is a unreliable packet. Does 
> this mean that the channel can be entirely blocked if the unreliable 
> packet is lost ie. no further reliable packets can be delivered. Or is 
> there a unwritten rule about not using reliable and unreliable packets 
> on the same channel?
> Thanks,
> Jonas
> _______________________________________________
> ENet-discuss mailing list
> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss

More information about the ENet-discuss mailing list