Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

At least I would like a portability between UNIX and Windows.
But I'm afraid that the sockaddr_in is different (please correct me if I'm
wrong).
ASCII format (or char[]) will work everywhere.


> -----Urspr> üngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Wagner, Joel
> [SMTP:Joel.Wagner AT icn.siemens.com]
> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 5. April 2001 16:39
> An:
> 'discussion AT sctp.de'
> Betreff: RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Boucher
> > [mailto:marc+sctp AT mbsi.ca]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:19 AM
> > To:
> > discussion AT sctp.de
> > Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?
> >
> >
> > let's not reinvent the wheel
> >
>
> Even though it didn't sound like it, I actually agree with you and don't
> like the idea of passing addresses around as ascii data. I'm just trying to
> understand the portability requirements of this interface.
>
> If the interface is to be extremely portable, then it should probably follow
> the guidelines that stack providers seem to follow. The interface provides
> definition for all of the data types that it uses, even the basics such as
> 8,16,32 bit ints, etc.
>
> If the interface is to be slightly less portable, but more familiar to most,
> then it should probably rely on some of the popular standardized data types.
> Personally, I'm happy with func(sockaddr *addr, int addr_len) where addr
> points to either a sockaddr_in or sockaddr_in6. This would also seem to be
> in line with the sctp socket draft standard. As for the other data types
> used by the interface, it would seem reasonable to assume the POSIX 1003.1g
> definitions for intN_t, uintN_t, size_t, etc.
>
> What are the portability requirements of this interface?
>
>
>
> > On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 08:15:47AM -0400, Wagner, Joel wrote:
> > > How about a compromise? Use a struct that contains the IP
> > address as it is
> > > represented on the net. This would: a) keep conversions to
> > a minimum, b)
> > > work equally well for IPv4 and IPv6, c) make it easy to
> > translate to/from
> > > various target required structs such as sockaddr_in, sockunion, etc.
> > >
> > > The struct could look something like:
> > >
> > > typedef struct {
> > > char ipa_bytes[IPA_MAX_ADDR_SIZE];
> > > int ipa_length;
> > > } IPaddress;
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discussion mailing list
> > discussion AT sctp.de
> > http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> >
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> discussion AT sctp.de
> http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/discussion

---

• AW: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?, Schruefer Wolfgang, 04/03/2001
  • Re: AW: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?, Andreas Jungmaier, 04/03/2001
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • AW: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?, Schruefer Wolfgang, 04/05/2001
  • AW: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?, Schruefer Wolfgang, 04/05/2001
    • [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Andreas Jungmaier, 04/05/2001
      • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Marc Boucher, 04/05/2001
        • Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Michael Tüxen, 04/05/2001
          • Re: Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Marc Boucher, 04/06/2001
            • Re(4): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Michael Tüxen, 04/06/2001
              • Re: Re(4): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Marc Boucher, 04/06/2001
              • Re(6): [SCTP-Discussion] Strings vs. Sockunion (was: Is the timer_list initialised?), Michael Tüxen, 04/06/2001

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.