-
sctp
SCTP Discussions
Text archives Help
- From: Yiwen Jiang <Yiwen.Jiang AT tic.siemens.ca>
- To: "'discussion AT sctp.de'" <discussion AT sctp.de>
- Subject: RE: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation
- Date: Thu Mar 15 17:16:00 2001
- List-id: SCTP Discussions <discussion.sctp.de>
> > Are all of these three APIs going to co-exist in the future?
> [Tuexen Michael] I think that kernel implementations
> will use the socket interface, userland implementations
> may use the one described in RFC 2960.
Any reason why this is so? Was SCTP designed to be a kernel feature or a
user space feather in the long term?
I did a brief comparison between the two user space implementations,
(Randy's vs. Andreas and Michael's). The APIs are different between the two.
Are there any plans to standardize the APIs (names, signatures, etc)? Will
there always be two types of implementations (kernal and user space)
co-existing in the future?
Sorry about the dumb questions, but I can't really find these answers
anywhere... :(
Cheers,
Yiwen
- Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, (continued)
- Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, La Monte Henry Piggy Yarroll, 03/09/2001
- Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Yiwen Jiang, 03/09/2001
- Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Andreas Jungmaier, 03/12/2001
- RE: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Tuexen Michael, 03/12/2001
- RE: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Yiwen Jiang, 03/12/2001
- Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Andreas Jungmaier, 03/12/2001
- Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, La Monte Henry Piggy Yarroll, 03/13/2001
- Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Andreas Jungmaier, 03/12/2001
- RE: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Tuexen Michael, 03/12/2001
- RE: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Yiwen Jiang, 03/13/2001
- RE: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Tuexen Michael, 03/14/2001
- RE: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP implementation, Yiwen Jiang, 03/15/2001
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.
