Talk:Connectionless protocol
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Connectionless protocol page were merged into Connectionless communication on 2013-01-29 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
...but TCP/IP (the most common variant of IP) is connection-orientated.
"variant" seems like a misnomer to me. what about "application" or "implementation"?
- "use" ? --Billpg 19:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with Billpg - I'll make the change to "use". Martin Hinks 10:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- How about "TCP provides a connection-oriented service to IP (which is a lower level protocol)" or something along the lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.184.43.91 (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Harder to filter?
[edit]- Connectionless protocols are often disfavoured by network administrators because it is much harder to filter malicious packets from a connectionless protocol using a firewall.
Are they really? Lambyuk 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't firewalls recognize connectionless flows (ie, sequences of packets having the same source and destination) and use that information to filter? So even though the protocol is connectionless, as long as it is "datagram service," ie, each packet contains all information necessary to deliver it, this would seem to be enough. 96.234.70.100 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
should this be merged with connectionless mode transmission? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Connectionless_mode_transmission
HTTP
[edit]Saying that HTTP is a connectionless protocol is misleading at best. It's blocking, client/server, query/response based. The fact that (at least without keep-alive, not to speak of pipelining) only one request is made per connection, doesn't mean the protocol is connectionless... -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)