[sldev] AppendedAcks

[Brandon Lockaby]

My thoughts:
* Under the current circumstances a packet ID occupies 4 bytes
* While the packet ID's are below 256 (not for very long), you can save one
byte for every packet ID
* Once they get into the range of 256-65535, zero coding would save nothing
* Once they get into the range of 65536-16777215, zero coding start to
require 5 bytes for each packet ID

I wonder if I understand correctly though?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Thomas Grimshaw <tom at streamsense.net> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I was just wondering if there was any practical reason why AppendedAcks
> are not zerocoded in the packet data?
>
> Saving a few bytes means fitting more Acks into each message,
> potentially reducing the number of PacketAck messages being sent, which
> means a potentially substantial protocol overhead reduction.
>
> This could also be implemented  with backward compatibility by using a
> new flag to indicate zerocoded appendedacks.
>
> ~T
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20090401/c8b45a2c/attachment.htm