Socket performance comparative analysis: TCP, UDP, SCTP, QUIC

D.V. Gadasin, M.V. Galitsky, R.O. Tsygankov

---

Abstract: The paper provides a comparative analysis of socket performance. At the initial stage, the performance of sockets implemented with the TCP, UDP, SCTP and QUIC transport protocols is analyzed under conditions similar to those of cloud services. Bandwidth, network delays, and CPU load are selected as the main metrics for comparison. At the next stage, a practical experiment is conducted. The experiment involves the implementation of a reproducible stand configuration: virtual machines and a master – slave model. Identical sets of data are transmitted, for which a fixed time for repeated measurements is determined. At the final stage, the results are analyzed.
Aim. The study is to analyze the transport protocols and architectural features of TCP, UDP, SCTP and QUIC sockets and to develop an experimental bench for evaluating key quality parameters.
Research methods include comparative analysis of transport sockets architecture and the estimates obtained as a result of the experiment, followed by data processing and interpretation of the results.
Results. Within the scope of this project, we analyzed the features of TCP, UDP, SCTP, and QUIC transport protocols in order to evaluate their performance. An experimental setup have been developed and implemented to measure performance parameters such as bandwidth, latency, and processor load. Test graphs with metric’s values for four transport sockets have been obtained. A comparative analysis has been conducted, based on which the patterns of influence of architecture and protocol mechanisms on socket efficiency have been identified. The paper reveals the relevance of this research, sets goals and objectives. The work of the experimental stand was demonstrated and data was collected, on the basis of which conclusions were drawn. Each task was completed successfully.

Keywords: socket, transport protocol, TCP, UDP, SCTP, QUIC, packet loss, tc netem, 0‑RTT, session resumption, multi-streaming, throughput, latency, CPU utilization, virtual machine

For citation. Gadasin D.V., Galitsky M.V., Tsygankov R.O. Socket performance comparative analysis: TCP, UDP, SCTP, QUIC. News of the Kabardino-Balkarian Scientific Center of RAS. 2026. Vol. 28. No. 1. Pp. 117–134. DOI: 10.35330/1991-6639-2026-28-1-117-134

©   Gadasin D.V., Galitsky M.V., Tsygankov R.O., 2026

References

1. Gadasin D. V., Shvedov A.V. Application of the transport task for load balancing in conditions of initial data fuzziness. T-Comm: Telecommunications and Transport. 2024. Vol. 18. No. 1. Pp. 13–20. DOI: 10.36724/2072-8735-2024-18-1-13-20. EDN: WKNPIX. (In Russian)
2. Stevens W.R., Fenner B., Rudoff E.M. UNIX. Razrabotka setevykh prilozheniy [Development of network applications] Rego. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2021. 1040 p. (In Russian)
3. aioquic: A QUIC and HTTP/3 implementation in Python. Documentation / package repository.
4. Bishop M. (Ed.) HTTP/3. RFC 9114. IETF, 2022.
5. Eddy W. (Ed.) Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). RFC 9293. IETF, 2022.
6. IEEE Std 1003.1-2017 (POSIX.1-2017). IEEE Standard for Information TechnologyPortable Operating System Interface (POSIXФ). IEEE, 2017. 3956 p.
7. Iyengar J., Thomson M. (Eds.) QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport. RFC 9000. IETF, 2021.
8. Iyengar J., Swett I. (Eds.) QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control. RFC 9002. IETF, 2021.
9. Kakhki A.M. et al. Taking a long look at quic: an approach for rigorous evaluation of rapidly evolving transport protocols. Proc. ACM IMC 2017. 2017.
10. Kerrisk M. The Linux programming interface. San Francisco: No Starch Press, 2010. 1552 p.
11. Langley A. et al. The QUIC transport protocol: design and internet-scale deployment. Proc. ACM SIGCOMM ’17. 2017. Pp. 183–196. DOI: 10.1145/3098822.3098842
12. Postel J. User Datagram Protocol. RFC 768. IETF, 1980.
13. psutil: Cross-platform process and system utilities. Official documentation.
14. pysctp (sctp): Python bindings for SCTP. Documentation / package repository.
15. Python documentation. socket – Low-level networking interface (Python 3.x).
16. Rescorla E. (Ed.) The transport layer security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3. RFC 8446. IETF, 2018.
17. Shvedov A.V., Gadasin D.V., Alyoshintsev A.V Segment routing in data transmission networks. T-Comm. 2022. Vol. 16. No. 5. Pp. 56–62. DOI: 10.36724/2072-8735-2022-16-5- 56-62. EDN: VAYLJQ
18. Stewart R., Tüxen M., Nielsen K. Stream Control Transmission Protocol. RFC 9260. IETF, 2022.
19. tc-netem(8) – Network Emulator. iproute2 Linux documentation.
20. Thomson M., Turner S. (Eds.) Using TLS to S J re QUIC. RFC 9001. IETF, 2021.

Information about the authors

Denis V. Gadasin, Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Network Information Technologies and Services, Moscow Technical University of Communications and Informatics;
8A, Aviamotornaya street, Moscow, 111024, Russia;
d.v.gadasin@mtuci.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5601-7798, SPIN-code: 8652-7558
Maxim V. Galitsky, Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Network Information Technologies and Services, Moscow Technical University of Communications and Informatics;
8A, Aviamotornaya street, Moscow, 111024, Russia;
m.v.galickiy@mtuci.ru, SPIN-code: 2959-8309
Roman O. Tsygankov, Master’s student, Moscow Technical University of Communications and Informatics;
8A, Aviamotornaya street, Moscow, 111024, Russia;
tsygankovr@bk.ru

Funding

The study was performed without external funding.