Matheus Valadares

> Regarding congestion control, this might be too much of a security concern for a web community and will unlikely allow such API to be implemented. Could you elaborate this...

IMO congestion control should be in the application layer in this case, since that's how UDP already works. The worst this proposal exposes is equivalent to what you can already...

@gafferongames I've seen netcode.io in the past, but with all due respect, it's a just not a good solution (in my opinion). Those "connection tokens" have no place in protocol...

>I have to disagree, because this is exactly how we solve this problem in the AAA space. What are you referring to? Connection tokens? That should be application level. >You...

>Replay attacks/mitm are very much a thing. True, but for most use cases that want UDP, they don't matter. If a malicious router is making the player walk into a...

>Yes. AAA multiplayer games always do this. You'd be crazy not to. Think of the MITM attacks... Like preventing the player from doing an action or sending them erroneous entity...

>But you haven't addressed spoofed packet headers and DDoS amplification attacks. This is unfortunately real and quite serious. If a UDP packet from server to source packet IP address is...

>So I open up wireshark and find the IP address that UDP packets are being sent to. I note this, and later on I start sending UDP packets to that...

>You don't seem to understand how DDoS amplification attacks work. *You* don't seem to understand how they work. Before we waste any more time: Are you saying this proposal enables...

Where does it say in my proposal how the server replies to UDP requests? Tell me how the *proposal* facilitates those attacks in any way. No, really, give me an...