• neeeeDanke@feddit.de
    118·
    11 months ago

    Nah, TCP is still just kicking the box over, but just kicking it over again, if the reciever doesn’t kick back a box saying they got it.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      60·
      11 months ago

      TCP is also deciding to ramp up the amount of boxes you kick over until the post worker gets crushed by boxes, at which point you decide to lower your box-kicking rate by half and try again.

    • Enk1@lemmy.world
      7·
      11 months ago

      I wrote an anology up and hated it, so I discarded it. Glad someone else nailed it.

    • CmdrKeen@lemmy.today
      5·
      11 months ago

      Well yes, internally that’s what it does, but from a user perspective it just looks like being handed the package, you never see any of the failed attempts (unless delivery fails completely because the company went out of business). It’s sorta more like having a butler who orders it for you and deals with any potential BS that might happen, and then just hands you the package when it finally arrives in one piece.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    71·
    11 months ago

    UDP seems more like a ball fired from canon to me. You may not be prepared for it and you won’t know what state it’s in when it gets here, but that packet is making it to the gate no matter what. Or, in the rare case it doesn’t, it means someone else is having a real bad time.

    • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
      29·
      11 months ago

      You forgot to mention that you might get it twice, or thrice, or more, and in different versions.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        9·
        11 months ago

        (novice) Why would you get UDP packets multiple times? UDP doesn’t check for acceptance I thought.

          • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            11 months ago

            If you have no RSTP/MSTP you’re just asking for trouble.

            Switching loops are unlikely unless you have bad or non-existent documentation or someone new.

              • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
                5·
                11 months ago

                Fun story. I was tasked with figuring out a connection problem on a client’s network. STP was enabled, but everyone having problems were all connected to one switch.

                Some investigation later and STP’s root port is not the expected root port…

                After some investigation, a user took the ethernet cable for their computer (Daisy chained off their VoIP phone), and decided to store it, in the wall jack… Across the office.

                That was Jack was on a different switch, and it had a lower port cost than the primary root port between the switches, so naturally, let’s send all inter-switch traffic over to this… Telephone.

                /Facepalm

              • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                11 months ago

                The only switching hardware they should have physical access to is a dumb switch if absolutely needed. Then control the cables.

                • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
                  3·
                  11 months ago

                  Yep. That happened once. The user plugged the cable for their laptop, from the dumb switch, into the same dumb switch and took out most of the network.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            6·
            11 months ago

            That is extraordinarily rare and I’m not even sure if it’s possible anymore. That was potential attack vector in the 90’s where you have a port on network switch, and then you flood the cam table with thousands of bogus mac addresses until you fill it up, then the switch turns into a hub, and you can now sniff all traffic traversing the switch. These days I’m not sure what will happen if you do successfully fill up a switches cam table. Also cam table sizes are are much much larger now. ~128k entry’s vs maybe 1000 back in the day.

            • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
              6·
              11 months ago

              You can bring a surprisingly large number of network segments down just by plugging both ends of the same cable into a dumb switch. It probably won’t happen immediately, but eventually you will get a broadcast storm which will propagate until it hits an element smart enough to snuff it out.

          • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
            5·
            11 months ago

            Don’t the big internet-y routers also send packets to multiple interfaces if they don’t know how to correctly handle the target IP address?

        • frezik@midwest.social
          7·
          11 months ago

          Protocols using UDP often dial in some features of TCP at the application layer, and resend packets as needed.

          The meme is funny and all, but real world use of UDP is pretty sophisticated.

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    55·
    11 months ago

    I mean I’ve been trying to formally request that ISO change the C API for send() to yeet() for sockets where connection reliability is not required at the network interface level.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      7·
      11 months ago

      It’s a postcard saying “hey, thinking of you!” and there’s a picture of a wulrus on it.