@article { ComNets2020,
	title = {On the Usability of Transport Protocols other than TCP: A Home Gateway and Internet Path Traversal Study},
	journal = {Computer Networks},
	volume = {173},
	year = {2020},
	month = {05/2020},
	publisher = {Elsevier},
	abstract = {Network APIs are moving towards protocol agility, where applications express their needs but not a static protocol binding, and it is up to the layer below the API to choose a suitable protocol. The IETF Transport Services (TAPS) Working Group is standardizing a protocol-independent transport API and offering guidance to implementers. Apple{\textquoteright}s recent {\textquotedblleft}Network.framework{\textquotedblright} is specifically designed to allow such late and dynamic binding of protocols. When the network stack autonomously chooses and configures a protocol, it must first test which protocols are locally available and which work end-to-end ({\textquotedblleft}protocol racing{\textquotedblright}). For this, it is important to know the set of available options, and which protocols should be tried first: Does it make sense to offer unchecked payload delivery, as with UDP-Lite? Is a UDP-based protocol like QUIC always a better choice, or should native SCTP be tried? This paper develops answers to such questions via (i) a NAT study in a local testbed, (ii) bidirectional Internet tests, (iii) a large scale Internet measurement campaign. The examined protocols are: SCTP, DCCP, UDP-Lite, UDP with a zero checksum and three different UDP encapsulations.},
	keywords = {DCCP, Internet, NAT, Protocol Testing, SCTP, UDP-Lite},
	issn = {1389-1286},
	doi = {10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107211},
	author = {Barik, Runa and Welzl, Michael and Fairhurst, Gorry and Dreibholz, Thomas and Elmokashfi, Ahmed and Gjessing, Stein}
}
