For Internet Protocol (IP) I can use multicast:
in IPv4: Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP)
in IPv6: Multicast Listener Discovery
Also, in example, for UDP I can use:
broadcast - to send packet to range of addresses
multicast - to send packet to list of specified addresses
But can I use something of these for TCP?
No, you can't. TCP is a protocol for communication between exactly two endpoints. Compared to UDP it features reliable transport, that means, that packets get not only send, but it is expected that the peer acknowledges the receipt of the data and that data will be retransmitted if the acknowledgment is missing. And because Broadcast and Multicast only send but never receive data, the reliability of TCP cannot be implemented on top of these protocols.
I normally don't post here, but I just needed to add a little clarification to the reasoning here. Steffen's answer is correct. No, you cant! perfect. let me answer the rest to say UDP is the right Protocol for sending Multicast and broadcast messages. I I yell out Steffen name in a crowded room, do i want everyone to respond? No way! If TCP was used, Everyone will confirm my packet!
So item two to discuss is reliability.This muddies the answer.UDP is awesome. When people say UDP is unreliable, they don't mean its bad. all they mean is the packet for UDP multicast does not need to hear a response, to confirm delivery. UDP is also great for voice communication, as When I talk, those packets are getting across faster, because the listener should not be saying yes, I got that packet, for every word I say.
Finally this leads us to UDP being reliable. After I clear this up, go back and read the paragraph above this one again. UDP is not Reliable. This is a major difference between TCP and UDP. So here is the Deal, there is UDP and R-UDP. R-UDP is a Different RFC (see link at bottom) then UDP. That RFC is IETF apparently. There may be others. They point about the original answer is was right, but introduced information about UDP (RFC 2460) that was wrong. For Academic reasons, as well as just common semse
Read about R-UDP here
RUDP does not appear to have a proper RDF. some RFC are used in its conceptualization, but it looks to be used by microsoft, who has sent IETF, some document to start an RFC process. that link is below:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/44/I-D/draft-ietf-sigtran-reliable-udp-00.txt
I addition, MS did publish some information below, along with a RUDP wiki:
http://www.viavisolutions.com/en-us/literature/microsoft-tv-test-application-notes-en.pdf
well Apparently my reputation has to be 10 to post more then two links--so wikipedia the other link look for R-UDP or RUDP
From my point of view when TCP protocol is accessed it should always be for unicasting,i.e. for single host and single server specified.As for example if we want to send a folder by mailing to a specific person a point to point connection will be established,but if there are many in cc or bcc,UDP will be there hence multicasting.
So my inference is TCP cannot be used for multicasting.
Related
I have used google for the above questionair but I still couldn't find the answer for the above question. Please help me out on this.
Networking packets are quite a complicated subject, but I will try to explain them to the best of my ability.
Each packet has a source IP and a destination IP, and a body. That’s all it actually needs. Most packets also have a protocol. I don’t know every major protocol, but the basic ones are ICMP, TCP, and UDP(TCP and UDP might be built on ICMP, not sure). Tcp and UDP packets also have a source port and destination port. Using some Linux trickery, you can define your own protocol, but your router probably won’t know what to do with traffic coming in as it isn’t programmed to know whether it should let it in. TCP gives the illusion of a byte stream, but everything is still split into packets. ICMP is just a simple packet, used for pings and similar things. UDP is the most basic of the 3, and is similar to ICMP but with ports, as far as I can tell.
Back to TCP, it splits into multiple packets, because too large of packets are more likely to get lost. TCP also makes sure all packets arrive and in the right order. A stream is nessesary for this, as if you were to try to send your own packet, it wouldn’t have a check for how large, and could get lost very easily if not done right.
A UDP listener simply tells the OS to listen for UDP packets on that port instead of discarding them. When you send a UDP packet, the router remembers the source and destination, and allows the other end to communicate back for a certain length of time.
A TCP listener accepts packets requesting a UDP connection, and sends them to a different port. The router uses a similar strategy to UDP to know if a packet should be let in. Unfortunately, if one side terminates, there is no way for the other side or the router to know. Thus the router will often continue letting in packets to a stream that was closed, which could pose a risk.
This is my understanding, it is very much flawed. Hope I could help nonetheless!
For a service which just returns a small number when queried such as 30, or 10, but would have to handle up to 5 or so requests at any instance, would TCP or UDP be a better protocol? I am leaning towards UDP, but I wanted some expert opinions. I am looking for relatively quick reply times as well. Could you tell me what the advantages of each would be for a service like this? Thanks.
TCP is a reliable connection-based protocol. So, you are guaranteed that data is sent/received - the packets are automatically re-sent if they are not verified to be received on the other end. However, there is the overhead of the three-way handshake for establishing the connection.
TCP is used for protocols like HTTP where there is a one-time exchange of information (the HTTP Request and Reply).
UDP is an unreliable connection-less protocol. So you can simply send / receive a packet but you have no (automatic, OS stack-provided) way of verifying that the other end got your message. If you care, you have to implement some kind of ACK yourself.
UDP is used often for more continuous, "streaming" type protocols. For example, many online multiplayer games use UDP to exchange game information to/from the host. They do this on a continual, periodic basis. So if a packet is lost, it's not really a big deal, because another update is just around the corner. It would be far worse for the gameplay if you had to wait for that (now stale) update to be re-transmitted.
DNS is also implemented over UDP.
Ultimately the choice is yours. I would probably default to TCP for most cases, and only use UDP in a scenario like I described.
What is the difference between TCP and UDP?
I know that TCP is used in the case of non-time critical applications, and UDP is used for games or applications that require fast transmission of data. I know that TCP is used for HTTP, HTTPs, FTP, SMTP, and Telnet. I know that UDP is used for DNS and DHCP.
But why? What characteristics of TCP and UDP make it useful for their respective use cases?
TCP is a connection oriented stream over an IP network. It guarantees that all sent packets will reach the destination in the correct order. This imply the use of acknowledgement packets sent back to the sender, and automatic retransmission, causing additional delays and a general less efficient transmission than UDP.
UDP is a connection-less protocol. Communication is datagram oriented. The integrity is guaranteed only on the single datagram. Datagrams reach destination and can arrive out of order or don't arrive at all. It is more efficient than TCP because it uses non ACK. It's generally used for real time communication, where a little percentage of packet loss rate is preferable to the overhead of a TCP connection.
In certain situations UDP is used because it allows broadcast packet transmission. This is sometimes fundamental in cases like DHCP protocol, because the client machine hasn't still received an IP address (this is the DHCP negotiaton protocol purpose) and there won't be any way to establish a TCP stream without the IP address itself.
From the Skullbox article:
TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) is the most commonly used protocol on the Internet.
The reason for this is because TCP offers error correction. When the TCP protocol is used there is a "guaranteed delivery." This is due largely in part to a method called "flow control." Flow control determines when data needs to be re-sent, and stops the flow of data until previous packets are successfully transferred. This works because if a packet of data is sent, a collision may occur. When this happens, the client re-requests the packet from the server until the whole packet is complete and is identical to its original.
UDP (User Datagram Protocol) is anther commonly used protocol on the Internet. However, UDP is never used to send important data such as webpages, database information, etc; UDP is commonly used for streaming audio and video. Streaming media such as Windows Media audio files (.WMA) , Real Player (.RM), and others use UDP because it offers speed! The reason UDP is faster than TCP is because there is no form of flow control or error correction. The data sent over the Internet is affected by collisions, and errors will be present. Remember that UDP is only concerned with speed. This is the main reason why streaming media is not high quality.
1) TCP is connection oriented and reliable where as UDP is connection less and unreliable.
2) TCP needs more processing at network interface level where as in UDP it’s not.
3) TCP uses, 3 way handshake, congestion control, flow control and other mechanism to make sure the reliable transmission.
4) UDP is mostly used in cases where the packet delay is more serious than packet loss.
Think of TCP as a dedicated scheduled UPS/FedEx pickup/dropoff of packages between two locations, while UDP is the equivalent of throwing a postcard in a mailbox.
UPS/FedEx will do their damndest to make sure that the package you mail off gets there, and get it there on time. With the post card, you're lucky if it arrives at all, and it may arrive out of order or late (how many times have you gotten a postcard from someone AFTER they've gotten home from the vacation?)
TCP is as close to a guaranteed delivery protocol as you can get, while UDP is just "best effort".
Reasons UDP is used for DNS and DHCP:
DNS - TCP requires more resources from the server (which listens for connections) than it does from the client. In particular, when the TCP connection is closed, the server is required to remember the connection's details (holding them in memory) for two minutes, during a state known as TIME_WAIT_2. This is a feature which defends against erroneously repeated packets from a preceding connection being interpreted as part of a current connection. Maintaining TIME_WAIT_2 uses up kernel memory on the server. DNS requests are small and arrive frequently from many different clients. This usage pattern exacerbates the load on the server compared with the clients. It was believed that using UDP, which has no connections and no state to maintain on either client or server, would ameliorate this problem.
DHCP - DHCP is an extension of BOOTP. BOOTP is a protocol which client computers use to get configuration information from a server, while the client is booting. In order to locate the server, a broadcast is sent asking for BOOTP (or DHCP) servers. Broadcasts can only be sent via a connectionless protocol, such as UDP. Therefore, BOOTP required at least one UDP packet, for the server-locating broadcast. Furthermore, because BOOTP is running while the client... boots, and this is a time period when the client may not have its entire TCP/IP stack loaded and running, UDP may be the only protocol the client is ready to handle at that time. Finally, some DHCP/BOOTP clients have only UDP on board. For example, some IP thermostats only implement UDP. The reason is that they are built with such tiny processors and little memory that the are unable to perform TCP -- yet they still need to get an IP address when they boot.
As others have mentioned, UDP is also useful for streaming media, especially audio. Conversations sound better under network lag if you simply drop the delayed packets. You can do that with UDP, but with TCP all you get during lag is a pause, followed by audio that will always be delayed by as much as it has already paused. For two-way phone-style conversations, this is unacceptable.
One of the differences is in short
UDP : Send message and dont look back if it reached destination, Connectionless protocol
TCP : Send message and guarantee to reach destination, Connection-oriented protocol
TCP establishes a connection before the actual data transmission takes place, UDP does not. In this way, UDP can provide faster delivery. Applications like DNS, time server access, therefore, use UDP.
Unlike UDP, TCP uses congestion control. It responses to the network load. Unlike UDP, it slows down when network congestion is imminent. So, applications like multimedia preferring constant throughput might go for UDP.
Besides, UDP is unreliable, it doesn't react on packet losses. So loss sensitive applications like multimedia transmission prefer UDP. However, TCP is a reliable protocol, so, applications that require reliability such as web transfer, email, file download prefer TCP.
Besides, in today's internet UDP is not as welcoming as TCP due to middle boxes. Some applications like skype fall down to TCP when UDP connection is assumed to be blocked.
Run into this thread and let me try to express it in this way.
TCP
3-way handshake
Bob: Hey Amy, I'd like to tell you a secret
Amy: OK, go ahead, I'm ready
Bob: OK
Communication
Bob: 'I', this is the first letter
Amy: First letter received, please send me the second letter
Bob: ' ', this is the second letter
Amy: Second letter received, please send me the third letter
Bob: 'L', this is the third letter
After a while
Bob: 'L', this the third letter
Amy: Third letter received, please send me the fourth letter
Bob: 'O', this the forth letter
Amy: ...
......
4-way handshake
Bob: My secret is exposed, now, you know my heart.
Amy: OK. I have nothing to say.
Bob: OK.
UDP
Bob: I LOVE U
Amy received: OVI L E
TCP is more reliable than UDP with even message order guaranteed, that's no doubt why UDP is more lightweight and efficient.
The Law of Leaky Abstractions
by Joel Spolsky
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html
Short and simple differences between Tcp and Udp protocol:
1) Tcp - Transmission control protocol and Udp - User datagram protocol.
2) Tcp is reliable protocol, Where as Udp is a unreliable protocol.
3) Tcp is a stream oriented, where as Udp is a message oriented protocol.
4) Tcp is a slower than Udp.
This sentence is a UDP joke, but I'm not sure that you'll get it. The below conversation is a TCP/IP joke:
A: Do you want to hear a TCP/IP joke?
B: Yes, I want to hear a TCP/IP joke.
A: Ok, are you ready to hear a TCP/IP joke?
B: Yes, I'm ready to hear a TCP/IP joke.
A: Well, here is the TCP/IP joke.
A: Did you receive a TCP/IP joke?
B: Yes, I **did** receive a TCP/IP joke.
TCP and UDP are transport layer protocol, Layer 4 protocol in OSI(open systems interconnection model). The main difference along with pros and cons are as following.
TCP
PROS:
Acknowledgment
Guaranteed Delivery
Connection based
Ordered packets
Congestion control
CONS:
Larger Packet
More bandwidth
Slower
Statefull
Consume memory
UDP
PROS:
Packets are smaller
Consume less bandwidth
Faster
Stateless
CONS:
No acknowledgment
No guaranteed delivery
Connectionless
No congestion control
No order packet
TLDR;
TCP - stream-oriented, requires a connection, reliable, slow
UDP - message-oriented, connectionless, unreliable, fast
Before we start, remember that all disadvantages of something are a continuation of its advantages. There only a right tool for a job, no panacea. TCP/UDP coexist for decades, and for a reason.
TCP
It was designed to be extremely reliable and it does its job very well. It's so complex because it accomplishes a hard task: providing a reliable transport over the unreliable IP protocol.
Since all TCP's complex logic is encapsulated into the network stack, you are free from doing lots of laborious, error-prone low-level stuff in the application layer.
When you send data over TCP, you write a stream of bytes to the socket at the sender side where it gets broken into packets, passed down the stack and sent over the wire. On the receiver side packets get reassembled again into a continous stream of bytes.
Maintaining this nice abstraction has a cost in terms of complexity and performance. If the 1st packet from the byte stream is lost, the receiver will delay processing of subsequent packets even those have already arrived (the so-called "head of line blocking").
In addition, in order to be reliable, TCP implements this:
TCP requires an established connection, which requires 3 round-trips ("infamous" 3-way handshake)
TCP has a feature called "slow start" when it gradually ramps up the transmission rate after establishing a connection to allow a receiver to keep up with data rate
Every sent packet has to be acknowledged or else a sender will stop sending more data
And on and on and on...
All this is exacerbated in slow unreliable wireless networks because TCP was designed for wired networks where delays are predictable and packet loss is not so common. In addition, like many people already mentioned, for some things TCP just doesn't work at all (DHCP). However, where relevant, TCP still does its work exceptionally well.
Using a mail analogy a TCP session is similar to telling a story to your secretary who breaks it into mails and sends over a crappy mail service to a publisher. On the other side another secretary assembles mails into a single piece of text. Some mails get lost, some get corrupted, so a very complex procedure is required for reliable delivery and your 10-page story can take a long time to reach your publisher.
UDP
UDP, on the other hand, is message-oriented, so a receiver writes a message (packet) to the socket and then it gets transmitted to a receiver as-is, without any splitting/assembling in the transport layer.
Compared to TCP, its specification is very straightforward. Essentially, all it does for you is adding a checksum to the packet so a receiver can detect its corruption. Everything else must be implemented by you, a software developer. Now read the voluminous TCP spec and try thinking of re-implementing even a small subset of it.
Some people went this way and got very decent results, to the point that HTTP/3 uses QUIC - a protocol based on UDP. However, this is more of an exception. Common applications of UDP are audio/video streaming and conferencing applications like Skype, Zoom or Google Hangout where loosing packets is not so important compared to a delay introduced by TCP.
Simple Explanation by Analogy
TCP is like this.
Imagine you have a pen-pal on Mars (we communicated with written letters back in the good ol' days before the internet).
You need to send your pen pal the seven habits of highly effective people. So you decide to send it in seven separate letters:
Letter 1 - Be proactive
Letter 2 - Begin with the end in mind...
etc.
etc..Letter 7 - Sharpen the Saw
Requirements:
You want to make sure that your pen pal receives all your letters - in order and that they arrive perfectly. If your pen pay receives letter 7 before letter 1 - that's no good. if your pen pal receives all letters except letter 3 - that also is no good.
Here's how we ensure that our requirements are met:
Confirmation Letter: So your pen pal sends a confirmation letter to say "I have received letter 1". That way you know that your pen pal has received it. If a letter does not arrive, or arrives out of order, then you have to stop, and go back and re-send that letter, and all subsequent letters.
Flow Control: Around the time of Xmas you know that your pen pal will be receiving a lot of mail, so you slow down because you don't want to overwhelm your pen pal. (Your pen pal sends you constant updates about the number of unread messages there are in penpal's mailbox - if your pen pal says that the inbox is about to explode because it is so full, then you slow down sending your letters - because your pen pal won't be able to read them.
Perfect arrival. Sometimes while you send your letter in the mail, it can get torn, or a snail can eat half of it. How do you know that all your letter has arrived in perfect condition? Well your pen pal will give you a mechanism by which you can check whether they've got the full letter and that it was the exactly the letter that you sent. (e.g. via a word count etc. ). a basic analogy.
I know the difference between the two on a technical level.
But in real life, can anyone provide examples (the more the better) of applications (uses) of TCP and UDP to demonstrate the difference?
UDP: Anything where you don't care too much if you get all data always
Tunneling/VPN (lost packets are ok - the tunneled protocol takes care of it)
Media streaming (lost frames are ok)
Games that don't care if you get every update
Local broadcast mechanisms (same application running on different machines "discovering" each other)
TCP: Almost anything where you have to get all transmitted data
Web
SSH, FTP, telnet
SMTP, sending mail
IMAP/POP, receiving mail
EDIT: I'm not going to bother explaining the differences, since you state that you already know and every other answer explains it anyway :)
UDP is mailing a letter at the post office.
TCP is mailing a letter with a return receipt at the post office, except that the post master will organize the letters in-order-of mailing and only deliver them in-order.
Well, it was an attempt anyway.
TCP:
World Wide Web(HTTP)
E-mail (SMTP TCP)
File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
Secure Shell (SSH)
UDP:
Domain Name System (DNS)
Streaming media applications such as movies
Online multiplayer games
Voice over IP (VoIP)
Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP)
REAL TIME APPLICATION FOR TCP:
Email:
Reason: suppose if some packet(words/statement) is missing we cannot understand the content.It should be reliable.
REAL TIME APPLICATION FOR UDP:
video streaming:
* **Reason: ***suppose if some packet(frame/sequence) is missing we can understand the content.Because video is collection of frames.For 1 second video there should be
25 frames(image).Even though we can understand some frames are missing due to our imagination skills. Thats why UDP is used for video streaming.
The classic standpoint is to consider TCP as safe and UDP as unreliable.
But when TCP-IP protocols are used in safety critical applications,
TCP is not recommended because it can stop on error for multiple reasons.
Whereas UDP lets the application software deal with errors, retransmission timers, etc.
Moreover, TCP has more processing overhead than UDP.
Currently, UDP is used in aircraft controls and flight instruments,
in the ARINC 664 standard also named AFDX (Avionics Full-Duplex Switched Ethernet).
In ARINC 664, TCP is optional but UDP is used with the RTOS (real time operating systems) designed for the ARINC 653 standard (high reliability control software in civil aircrafts).
For more information about real time controls using IP and UDP in AFDX,
you can read the pages 27 to 50 in
http://www.afdx.com/pdf/AFDX_Training_October_2010_Full.pdf
TCP
I will not send data anymore until i get an acknowledgment.
this process is slow
It is used for security purpose
example: web, sending mail, receiving mail etc
UDP
Here i have no headache with acknowledgment.
this process is faster but here data can be lost .
example : video streaming , online games etc
TCP + UDP = SMTP(example : mobile,telephone)
TCP guarantees (in-order) packet delivery. UDP doesn't.
TCP - used for traffic that you need all the data for. i.e HTML, pictures, etc.
UDP - used for traffic that doesn't suffer much if a packet is dropped, i.e. video & voice streaming, some data channels of online games, etc.
TCP is a connection oriented protocol, It establishes a path, or a virtual connection all the way through switches routers proxies etc and then starts any communication. Various mechanisms like routing djikstras shortest path algorithm exist to establish the virtual end to end connection. So it finds itself used while browsing HTML and other pages, making payments and web applications in general.
UDP is a connectionless protocol - it simply has a destination and nodes simply pass it along if it comes as best as they can. So packets arriving out of order, along various routes etc are common. So Instant messengers and similar software developers think UDP an ideal solution.
In real life if you want to throw data in the net, without worrying about time taken to reach, order of reaching use UDP. If you want a solid path before you start throwing packets, and want same order and latency for your data packets use TCP - I will use UDP for Torrents and TCP for PayPal!
TCP :
Transmission Control Protocol is a connection-oriented protocol, which means that it requires handshaking to set up end-to-end communications. Once a connection is set up, user data may be sent bi-directionally over the connection.
Reliable – Strictly only at transport layer, TCP manages message acknowledgment, retransmission and timeout. Multiple attempts to deliver the message are made. If it gets lost along the way, the server will re-request the lost part. In TCP, there's either no missing data, or, in case of multiple timeouts, the connection is dropped. (This reliability however does not cover application layer, at which a separate acknowledgement flow control is still necessary)
Ordered – If two messages are sent over a connection in sequence, the first message will reach the receiving application first. When data segments arrive in the wrong order, TCP buffers delay the out-of-order data until all data can be properly re-ordered and delivered to the application.
Heavyweight – TCP requires three packets to set up a socket connection, before any user data can be sent. TCP handles reliability and congestion control.
Streaming – Data is read as a byte stream, no distinguishing indications are transmitted to signal message (segment) boundaries.
Applications of TCP
World Wide Web, email, remote administration, and file transfer rely on TCP.
UDP :
User Datagram Protocol is a simpler message-based connectionless protocol. Connectionless protocols do not set up a dedicated end-to-end connection. Communication is achieved by transmitting information in one direction from source to destination without verifying the readiness or state of the receiver.
Unreliable – When a UDP message is sent, it cannot be known if it will reach its destination; it could get lost along the way. There is no concept of acknowledgment, retransmission, or timeout.
Not ordered – If two messages are sent to the same recipient, the order in which they arrive cannot be predicted.
Lightweight – There is no ordering of messages, no tracking connections, etc. It is a small transport layer designed on top of IP.
Datagrams – Packets are sent individually and are checked for integrity only if they arrive. Packets have definite boundaries which are honored upon receipt, meaning a read operation at the receiver socket will yield an entire message as it was originally sent.
No congestion control – UDP itself does not avoid congestion. Congestion control measures must be implemented at the application level.
Broadcasts – being connectionless, UDP can broadcast - sent packets can be addressed to be receivable by all devices on the subnet.
Multicast – a multicast mode of operation is supported whereby a single datagram packet can be automatically routed without duplication to very large numbers of subscribers.
Applications of UDP
Numerous key Internet applications use UDP, including: the Domain Name System (DNS), where queries must be fast and only consist of a single request followed by a single reply packet, the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), the Routing Information Protocol (RIP) and the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP).
Voice and video traffic is generally transmitted using UDP. Real-time video and audio streaming protocols are designed to handle occasional lost packets, so only slight degradation in quality occurs, rather than large delays if lost packets were retransmitted. Because both TCP and UDP run over the same network, many businesses are finding that a recent increase in UDP traffic from these real-time applications is hindering the performance of applications using TCP, such as point of sale, accounting, and database systems. When TCP detects packet loss, it will throttle back its data rate usage. Since both real-time and business applications are important to businesses, developing quality of service solutions is seen as crucial by some.
Some VPN systems such as OpenVPN may use UDP while implementing reliable connections and error checking at the application level.
TCP is appropriate when you have to move a decent amount of data (> ~1 kB), and you require all of it to be delivered. Almost all data that moves across the internet does so via TCP - HTTP, SMTP, BitTorrent, SSH, etc, all use TCP.
UDP is appropriate when you have small messages which you can afford to lose, and would like to send them as efficiently as possible. One reason you might be able to afford to lose them is because you can re-send them if they get lost. The main example on the internet is DNS - DNS consists of small queries saying things like "what is the IP number for stackoverflow.com?", and the responses are correspondingly small. Computers make a lot of these queries, so they should be made efficiently, but if they get lost en route, it's easy to time out and re-send them.
TCP guarantees packet delivery AND order. Order is almost as important as the delivery in the first place when reconstructing data for files such as executables, etc.
UDP does not guarantee delivery NOR order. Packets can arrive (or not!) in any order.
Common uses for TCP include file transfer where the integrity of the packets is paramount. Voice/video applications can afford to lose some data while still maintaining acceptable quality, and so usually use UDP.
One additional thought on some of the comments above that talks about ordered delivery.... It must be clarified that the destination computer may receive packets out of order on the wire, but the TCP at the destination is responsible for "rearranging out-of-order data" before passing it on to the upper layers of the stack. When you say TCP guarantees ordered packet delivery, what that means is it will deliver packets in correct order to the upper layers of the stack.
SCTP vs TCP vs UDPServices/Features SCTP TCP UDP
Connection-oriented yes yes no
Full duplex yes yes yes
Reliable data transfer yes yes no
Partial-reliable data transfer optional no no
Ordered data delivery yes yes no
Unordered data delivery yes no yes
Flow control yes yes no
Congestion control yes yes no
ECN capable yes yes no
Selective ACKs yes optional no
Preservation of message boundaries yes no yes
Path MTU discovery yes yes no
Application PDU fragmentation yes yes no
Application PDU bundling yes yes no
Multistreaming yes no no
Multihoming yes no no
Protection against SYN flooding attacks yes no n/a
Allows half-closed connections no yes n/a
Reachability check yes yes no
Psuedo-header for checksum no (vtags) yes yes
Time wait state vtags 4-tuple n/a
Since tcp usages are pretty straightforward from other answers, I'll mention some interesting UDP use-cases:
1)DHCP - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, which is being used in order to dynamically assign IP address and some other network configuration to the connecting devices. In simple words, this protocol allows you just connect to the network cable(or wifi) and start using the internet, without any additional configurations. DHCP uses UDP protocol. Since the settings request message is being broadcasted from the host and there is no way to establish a TCP connection with DHCP server(you don't know it's address) it's impossible to use TCP instead.
2)Traceroute - well-known network diagnostic tool which allows you to explore which path in the network your datagram passes to reach it's destination(and how much time it takes). By default, it works by sending UDP datagram with unlikely destination port number(ranging from 33434 to 33534) to the destination with the ttl(time-to-live) field set to 1. When the router somewhere in the network gets such datagram - it finds out that the datagram is expired. Then, the router drops the datagram and sends to the origin of the datagram an ICMP(Internet Control Message Protocol) error message indicating that the datagram's ttl was expired and containing router's name and IP address. Each time the host sends datagrams with higher and higher TTL, thus increasing the network part which it succeeds to overcome and getting new ICMP messages from new routers. When it eventually reaches it's destination(datagrams TTL is big enough to allow it),- the destination host sends 'Destination port unreachable' ICMP message to the origin host. This way, Traceroute knows that the destination was reached. Since the TCP guarantees segments delivery it would be at least inefficient to use it instead of UDP which, in turn, allows datagram to be just dropped without any resend attempts(resend is implemented on the higher level, with continuously increasing TTL as described above).
TCP: will get there in meaningful order
UDP: god knows (maybe)
UDP is applied a lot in games or other Peer-to-peer setups because it's faster and most of the time you don't need the protocol itself to make sure everything gets to the destination in the original order (UDP does not garantee packet delivery or delivery order).
Web traffic on the other hand is over TCP. (I'm not sure here but I think it has to do with the way the HTTP protocol is built)
Edited because I failed at UDP.
Real life examples of both TCP and UDP
tcp -> a phone call, sms or anything specific to destination
UDP -> a FM radio channel (AM), Wi-Fi.
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol: **
"Unlike TCP, UDP is compatible with packet broadcast (sending to all on local network) and multicasting (send to all subscribers)."
'Compatible' is a very poor choice of words here. 'Supports' is what is really being described. TCP is a point to point protocol, by design. Period. TCP multicast is a contradiction in terms.
EDIT: I updated the Wikipedia page to reflect this comment.
EDIT 2: Incredibly enough, somebody has removed all mention of multicast from the Wikipedia UDP page since this question was posted. I fixed it. Again.
TCP establishes a connection between the sender and the receiver. The sender sends a packet, then waits for acknowledgement from the receiver before sending another1. If a packet goes too long without being acknowledged, it resends the packet until it does receive an acknowledgement (that's how it gets its reliability).
In the case of multicast and broadcast, the sender doesn't even know how many receivers there might be, not to mention who they are. That makes it pretty much impossible for it to wait for confirmation and re-send packets if somebody doesn't acknowledge a packet correctly.
1Technically, there's a "window" that allows it to send, say, five packets before it receives acknowledgement, but you get the idea -- it still needs to know who's receiving, and get acknowledgement of packets that it sent, and re-send packets if they're not acknowledged.
TCP incorporates both flow control and reliability based on acknowledgment from the recipient of the data. A broadcast or multicast transmitter has no idea which or how many other nodes are listening; even if it did by some sort of multipoint synchronization algorithm similar to TCP's point-to-point synchronization, flow control would be an issue because the receiver under the worst conditions would limit the speed of the entire flow.
The short answer is because broadcast TCP is complicated.
The long answer is that the important parts of the TCP protocol, namely reliability and congestion control when ported to broadcast semantics are easily subject to abuse, don't scale well, and multicast is simply and optional component of the IPv4 standard and either not implemented or disabled at most core routers.
Many papers have been published investigating new protocols to improve scalability; IPv6 promotes multicast to a core protocol requirement and alongside source-specific-multicast significantly improves core routing support and security; leaving the still significant area of abuse.
Abuse covers many aspects of the protocol, from man-in-the-middle attacks, to overloading network infrastructure, causing network storms of traffic upstream to the source.
With a Windows machine today you can use the PGM protocol with streams support which operates pretty much as broadcast TCP. It is used by Microsoft's messaging system MSMQ.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740125(v=vs.85).aspx