[mina] Is UDP connectionless or stateless?

[Trustin Lee]

Hi,

We are using the term 'stateless' for the transport types such as UDP/IP.  But I'm a little bit confused which one is correct; connectionless and stateless.

Can we safely say that UDP is connectionless?  Can we say protocols based on UDP are stateless?

It would be great if anyone can answer to this question.

Cheers,
Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/

[Michal Slocinski]

On 10/17/05, Trustin Lee <trustin@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are using the term 'stateless' for the transport types such as UDP/IP.
> But I'm a little bit confused which one is correct; connectionless and
> stateless.
>
> Can we safely say that UDP is connectionless?  Can we say protocols based on
> UDP are stateless?
>

Hi,

I agree with sentence that UDP is connectionless - applications based
on that doesn't maintain persistent connection object - they just send
packets into the network willing that addressee will receive it. Are
UDP-based protocols stateless? I don't think this is general rule. I
can imagine protocols and applications that keep state basing on
received UDP datagrams and change state of application when some
specific datagrams arrive. Take RADIUS as an example - accounting
specification defines 3 types of packets: Accounting-Start,
Interim-Update and Accounting-Stop. I believe all of applications
based on RADIUS changes state of their internal objects when receiving
such packets :-)

--
best regards,
Michal

[Alex Karasulu-4]

Trustin Lee wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We are using the term 'stateless' for the transport types such as
> UDP/IP.  But I'm a little bit confused which one is correct;
> connectionless and stateless.
>
> Can we safely say that UDP is connectionless?  Can we say protocols
> based on UDP are stateless?
>
> It would be great if anyone can answer to this question.

Yah I think its connectionless.

Alex

[Emmanuel Lecharny]

> Yah I think its connectionless.

UDP is connectionless

-- Emmanuel

[Trustin Lee]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

I found Wikipedia says it is both stateless and connectionless in the viewpoint of transport layer.

Connectionless is too long to type.  Are we OK just to go with stateless?

Trustin

2005/10/18, Trustin Lee <trustin@...>:

Hi,

We are using the term 'stateless' for the transport types such as UDP/IP.  But I'm a little bit confused which one is correct; connectionless and stateless.

Can we safely say that UDP is connectionless?  Can we say protocols based on UDP are stateless?

It would be great if anyone can answer to this question.

Cheers,
Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/

--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/

[Emmanuel Lecharny]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 08:16 +0900, Trustin Lee wrote:
> I found Wikipedia says it is both stateless and connectionless in the
> viewpoint of transport layer.
>
> Connectionless is too long to type.  Are we OK just to go with
> stateless?

UDP are connectionless, and stateless. So you can just call them UDP
without adding connectionless nor stateless ;)

-- Emmanuel

[Maarten Bosteels-6]

Trustin Lee wrote:

> I found Wikipedia says it is both stateless and connectionless in the
> viewpoint of transport layer.
>
> Connectionless is too long to type.  Are we OK just to go with stateless?
>
> Trustin
>
If you need to call it anything else than UDP, I would go for
"connectionless"
since the protocol implemented on top of UDP can certainly be stateful
(as someone already pointed out)

http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/UDP also uses
"connectionless"

Maarten