[ENet-discuss] ordered packets

[Paul Collier]

Sorry, I shouldn't have sent my question as a reply to your message,
as I was asking about other details of the library implementation, and
wasn't relating it at all to your implementation of unordered reliable
packets. I'm sorry making you explain for nothing; that's my fault for
not being clear enough. Cheers anyways!

- Paul

On 3/31/06, Luis Cabellos <lists at tragnarion.com> wrote:
> Well, in the server I don't discriminate among the channel that the
> packet came from. So in the server I treat all packets the same way.
> Enet use the channels to mantain the order of packets. All the packets
> in the same channel are in-order, and if one of the packets arrive at
> server too later, it will be dropping and wait for acknowledgment.So if
> you know that the packets don't need the order, the use of a range of
> channels
>
> Let me show one ASCII example :)
>
>     When you use on channel
>     Send:
>      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  -> channel 1
>
>     Receive:
>      1 2 [>> 4 5 3 <<] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  ->channel 1
>      -> Enet drop 4 and wait for arrive of 3
>
>     And when you use 3 channels, [ min = 1 , max = 3 ]
>     Send:
>      1     4     7     10        -> channel 1
>        2     5     8      11     -> channel 2
>          3     6     9       12  -> channel 3
>
>     Receive
>      1   4       7     10        -> channel 1
>        2   5       8      11     -> channel 2
>              3 6     9       12  -> channel 3
>      -> And you get 1 2 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 without drop / wait
>
> So the client is the only that change the lenght of the range of
> channels, with a long range less probability of out-of-order. And the
> change of the number of channels if you maintain that ( min <= max ) it
> will be always one channel at least. In the other hand, if you increase
> the range, I think that the server will not slow down too much with the
> use of more channels.
>
> - Luis | Tragnarion
>
> Paul Collier wrote:
>
> >I'm curious about setting the range of channels. Is there any way to
> >set it other than by the client at connection establishment? If
> >someone tried to clone a program's protocol with enet but changed the
> >number of channels, could this possibly affect the behaviour of the
> >server you were running? (i.e. they set it to zero--could this break
> >the server network code? Or perhaps they set it to a very high
> >number--could this slow down the server?) Enet seems to be pretty good
> >about security from what I've seen, in any case.
> >
> >- Paul
> >
> >On 3/30/06, Luis Cabellos <lists at tragnarion.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> You can send Unordered packets using a range of channels and send the
> >>packets sequentially in those channels. e.g: If you reserve [min, max] for
> >>unordered send, the next code snip will work like an unordered send.
> >>
> >>     packet = enet_packet_create( msg, size, ENET_PACKET_FLAG_RELIABLE );
> >>     enet_peer_send( server, unorderedChannel, packet);
> >>     ++this->unorderedChannel;
> >>     if( unorderedChannel > MAX_UNORDERED ) {
> >>         unorderedChannel = MIN_UNORDERED;
> >>     }
> >>
> >> Luis | Tragnarion
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ENet-discuss mailing list
> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>