yojimbo VS lsquic

yojimbo/ netcode/ reliable, all developped by Glenn Fidler, author of GafferOnGames

They really just didn't know how to go about building a complex online game or what that entails. At one point they were trying to donate to open source networking projects that were still in development and not production-ready in hopes they'd help them make their game, you'll see them listed as sponsors of yojimbo for example. It was bizarre to watch.

I can't remember exactly how best to handle this (Glenn's yojimbo project is probably your best bet for a concrete implementation), but here's an idea: buffer and ACK some packets (e.g. up to N packets following your missing packet) and discard everything else (without ACK) until the missing one shows up. The protocol will then continuously try to send your missing packet, in addition to the packets you've intentionally not ACK'd. Once the missing packet shows up you can process it and any buffered packets up to your next missing packet and repeat.

You may want to take a look at yojimbo , looks like it will fit your requirements pretty well.

And has his own C++ library for transmitting messages over UDP protocol https://github.com/networkprotocol/yojimbo

I referred to sockets as an API design, not to express an opinion on whether you should place your protocol implementations inside or outside the kernel. (Although that’s undeniably an interesting question that by all rights should have been settled by now, but isn’t.)

Even then, I didn’t mean you should reproduce the Berkeley socket API verbatim (ZeroMQ-style); multiple streams per connection does not sound like a particularly good fit to it (although apparently people have managed to fit SCTP into it[1]?). I only meant that with the current mainstream libraries[2,3,4], establishing a QUIC connection and transmitting bytestreams or datagrams over it seems quite a bit more involved than performing the equivalent TCP actions using sockets.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6458

[2] https://quiche.googlesource.com/quiche

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/msquic

[4] https://github.com/litespeedtech/lsquic

> the word "thread" does not appear anywhere.

because it doesn't use threads? The library is intended to be used inside an eventloop. I think the same also applies for other typical transport libraries - e.g. HTTP/2 or TLS ones.

> Not sure why one would choose this over QUICHE.

I think there are certainly reasons. lsquic seems a lot more optimized than quiche and most other libraries out there. It makes use of some pretty clever datastructures (e.g. https://github.com/litespeedtech/lsquic/blob/master/src/libl...), and likely has a drastically lower rate of heap allocations than other implementations. Some of those things - like the use of intrusive linked lists - are unfortunately not that easy to apply in Rust.

I wouldn't be suprised if lsquic outperforms various other implementations - and if that's important to users it might be a reason to choose it (but as always: measure for your use-case).

I personally also think Rust is the way to go for system level code. But I wouldn't dismiss a project for not using Rust. And this one at least has a fair set of unit-tests, so it looks to me a lot more sane than a lot of other C based projects.