Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

> What we have now is just enough that an adventuresome developer could
> write a working SCTP application with our code. Our direction is
> toward implementing the UDP-style interface first. Naturally, we'd be
> thrilled to have some developers start pounding on our
> implementation.
If I was goign to use your implementation, how do you support multi-stream
in the UDP-style interface?

> If stability and OO methods are important to you, I strongly recommend
> Andreas' and Michael's implementation. If you'd like to help shake
> out the design of the UDP-style interface, try our implementation.
>
Thank you for your suggestion... I'll look more into the code and try to
make a decision.. I really like the sound of kernel implementation for SCTP,
but stability is quite important for me as well...

> > > HP has a very nice implementation for HPUX, and Cisco's IOS
> > > implementation performed well too.
> > >
> > > That's all the publicly announced kernel implementations.
> If you wish
> > > to hear about more, watch the TSV list. Several vendors have
> >
> > What is the TSV list? How do I subscribe it?
>
> Start here: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/tsvwg-charter.html
I went there, but there was no mentioning of SCTP, but more for new
developments on TCP... ?

---

• [SCTP-Discussion] Re: SCTP implementation, Yiwen Jiang, 03/12/2001
  • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Re: SCTP implementation, La Monte Henry Piggy Yarroll, 03/13/2001
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Re: SCTP implementation, Yiwen Jiang, 03/13/2001
    • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Re: SCTP implementation, La Monte Henry Piggy Yarroll, 03/14/2001
  • RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Re: SCTP implementation, Tuexen Michael, 03/14/2001

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.