2b 19 35 +. 11 2b 19
User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
If you were to compare the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) with TCP, the former is basically the scaled-down economy model that’s sometimes referred to as a thin protocol. Like a thin person on a park bench, a thin protocol doesn’t take up a lot of room—or in this case, much bandwidth on a network.
UDP doesn’t offer all the bells and whistles of TCP either, but it does do a fabulous job of transporting information that doesn’t require reliable delivery—and it does so using far fewer network resources. (UDP is covered thoroughly in Request for Comments 768.)
There are some situations in which it would definitely be wise for developers to opt for UDP rather than TCP. Remember the watchdog SNMP up there at the Process/Application layer? SNMP monitors the network, sending intermittent messages and a fairly steady flow of status updates and alerts, especially when running on a large network. The cost in overhead to establish, maintain, and close a TCP connection for each one of those little messages would reduce what would be an otherwise healthy, efficient network to a dammed-up bog in no time!
Another circumstance calling for UDP over TCP is when reliability is already handled at the Process/Application layer. Network File System (NFS) handles its own reliability issues, making the use of TCP both impractical and redundant. But ultimately, it’s up to the application developer to decide whether to use UDP or TCP, not the user who wants to transfer data faster.
UDP does not sequence the segments and does not care in which order the segments arrive at the destination. But after that, UDP sends the segments off and forgets about them. It doesn’t follow through, check up on them, or even allow for an acknowledgment of safe arrival—complete abandonment. Because of this, it’s referred to as an unreliable protocol.
This does not mean that UDP is ineffective, only that it doesn’t handle issues of reliability. Further, UDP doesn’t create a virtual circuit, nor does it contact the destination before delivering information to it. Because of this, it’s also considered a connectionless protocol.
Since UDP assumes that the application will use its own reliability method, it doesn’t use any. This gives an application developer a choice when running the Internet Protocol stack: TCP for reliability or UDP for faster transfers.
So if you’re using Voice over IP (VoIP), for example, you really don’t want to use UDP, because if the segments arrive out of order (very common in IP networks), they’ll just be passed up to the next OSI (DoD) layer in whatever order they’re received, resulting in some seriously garbled data. On the other hand, TCP sequences the segments so they get put back together in exactly the right order—something that UDP just can’t do.
UDP Segment Format
Figure 1.8 clearly illustrates UDP’s markedly low overhead as compared to TCP’s hungry usage. Look at the figure carefully—can you see that UDP doesn’t use windowing or provide for acknowledgments in the UDP header?
It’s important for you to understand what each field in the UDP segment is: Source port Port number of the application on the host sending the data Destination port Port number of the application requested on the destination host Length Length of UDP header and UDP data
Checksum Checksum of both the UDP header and UDP data fields Data Upper-layer data
UDP, like TCP, doesn’t trust the lower layers and runs its own CRC. Remember that the Frame Check Sequence (FCS) is the field that houses the CRC, which is why you can see the FCS information. The following shows a UDP segment caught on a network analyzer:
UDP - User Datagram Protocol
Source Port: 1085
Destination Port: 5136
Length: 41
Checksum: 0x7a3c
UDP Data Area:
..Z......00 01 5a 96 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 11 0000 00
...C..2._C._C 2e 03 00 43 02 1e 32 0a 00 0a 00 80 43 00 80
Frame Check Sequence: 0x00000000
Notice that low overhead! Try to find the sequence number, ack number, and window size in the UDP segment. You can’t because they just aren’t there!
Key Concepts of Host-to-Host Protocols
Since you’ve seen both a connection-oriented (TCP) and connectionless (UDP) protocol in action, it would be good to summarize the two here. Table 1. 2 highlight some of the key concepts that you should keep in mind regarding these two protocols. You should memorize this table.
A telephone analogy could really help you understand how TCP works. Most of us know that before you speak to someone on a phone, you must first establish a connection with that other person—wherever they are. This is like a virtual circuit with the TCP protocol. If you were giving someone important information during your conversation, you might say, “You know?” or ask, “Did you get that?” Saying something like this is a lot like a TCP acknowledgment— it’s designed to get you verification. From time to time (especially on cell phones), people also ask, “Are you still there?” They end their conversations with a “Goodbye” of some kind, putting closure on the phone call. TCP also performs these types of functions.
Alternately, using UDP is like sending a postcard. To do that, you don’t need to contact the other party first. You simply write your message, address the postcard, and mail it. This is analogous to UDP’s connectionless orientation. Since the message on the postcard is probably not a matter of life or death, you don’t need an acknowledgment of its receipt. Similarly, UDP does not involve acknowledgments.
Ccna Certified Mr.Mohamed Samir
