Would Performance Improve if a VPN Tunnel were Implemented with UDP Lite?

Hello, I'm Munou (incompetent). Recently, WebRTC came up in conversation, and I remembered seeing it before as a streaming method that could be done with Nginx.

The reason WebRTC can operate at high speed is because it runs on the UDP protocol. So, while re-examining the UDP page of "Mastering TCP/IP", I also looked at other protocols and discovered UDP Lite!

I had read through it a long time ago, and I read it without feeling any particular strangeness, but now I've become interested in it.

The reason is that I've always thought Wireguard is fast because it also tunnels over the UDP protocol (strictly speaking, it's not fast solely because it's UDP). For example, OpenVPN is easy to install, but it's too slow and too stressful to use constantly.

Here, I'll quote from Wikipedia:

Whereas UDP packets are discarded if even a single bit of data is corrupted, UDP-Lite transmits them as is.

It seems to transmit corrupted packets as they are. There are other differences, but I'll omit them here.

For example, would performance improve if UDP Lite were implemented in Wireguard?

This brings us back to the title: if UDP Lite were implemented, would it lead to a speed improvement?

From my still amateur perspective, and without having looked at Wireguard's source code, I think it depends on whether error handling is performed for discarded packets.

How much packet loss actually occurs with the UDP protocol? While UDP Lite, which transmits even lost packets, might offer speed improvements, I can't quite visualize it.

Therefore, I plan to investigate how much packet loss occurs with the UDP protocol, starting with iperf next time.

See you next time. Thank you.