UDP packets loss at Israeli ISPs during peak hours

[geoffrey mendelson]

On Jul 3, 2011, at 8:02 AM, shimi wrote:
>
> There's a very good reason of using UDP and not TCP for tunneling. http://sites.inka.de/bigred/devel/tcp-tcp.html



That's 10 years old. Even then it was questionable, UDP packets were  
dropped by ISPs all over the world when congested. That's why I worded  
my answer the way I did. If you understand what the differences are  
between TCP and UDP, you understand the risks, costs and benefits.

With an uncrowded network, UDP makes more sense because there is a lot  
of overhead in TCP you don't need. In a crowded network, where UDP  
packets get dropped or delayed, like the are supposed to. TCP is a  
better option.

It depends upon what you want. Fast performace with drop outs, or  
slower more reliable performance. For example, VoIP normally uses UDP  
as the desingers prefered to drop packets that arrived out of sequence  
or late, a little sound glitch was worth it for better streaming  
performance.

HTTP was built around TCP because the designers wanted 100%  
reliablilty instead of (possible) better performance.

FTP was built on neither. The FTP protocol uses UDP, but includes a  
rudimentry implementation of the same functions as TCP (packet  
sequencing and replacements of bad/missing packets).

IMHO it all depends upon what you are using the VPN for. For watching  
the "footie" on the "telly" then I would chose UDP with no problem,  
even when there would be significant drop outs. For a business VPN  
where I'm editing text or filling out forms, or whatever, TCP would be  
required as you want to see and send every packet of data. YMMV.

As for dealing with your ISP, if you want dedicate bandwidth, buy  
dedicated bandwidth. If you want random performance based on the low  
price plan, don't expect them to make it better.

Geoff.

-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson,  N3OWJ/4X1GM
Making your enemy reliant on software you support is the best revenge.