[sldev] AppendedAcks

[Thomas Grimshaw]

Yes, you're right. For some reason I was thinking they were 64bit ID's, 
when I know they're not.

Apologies

~T

Brandon Lockaby wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>
>