Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Dear Marc,
we are providing sctp_socketCallback only for UDP handling. So are you
thinking about UDP or SCTP traffic?

Best regards
Michael

--
e-mail:
Michael.Tuexen AT micmac.franken.de

On Fri, Apr 6, 2001, Marc Boucher
<marc+sctp AT mbsi.ca>
wrote:

>Hello everyone,
>
>Just to clarify;
>
>I am not really concerned about the form of addresses passed to
>seldomly called initialization or association establishment functions,
>such as sctp_registerInstance and sctp_associate.
>As it has been pointed out, this has obviously little or no impact on
>performance. My problem is with passing addresses as strings to
>sctp_socketCallback functions and doing conversions in dispatch_event().
>
>However, it would be nice to use a consistent form for both initialization
>and socketCallback functions, although it isn't technically required.
>
>Marc
>
>On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:39:29PM +0200, Michael Tüxen wrote:
>>
>> So coming back to the discussion, I think have two choices:
>>
>> 1. Using a sochunion-like structure and proving routines str2sockunion
>> and vice versa. Then for the function sctp_registerInstance and
>> sctp_associate you would call these funcitons and use the result in
>> these functions.
>>
>> 2. Using a string type and the functions sctp_registerInstance
>> and sctp_associate call these translation function themselves.
>>
>> >From a performance point of view I do not see a difference. But the
>> API for 2. is simpler: You need two functions in the API less and no
>sockunion
>> structure. This is the argument Wolfgang stated and which is valid, I
>> think. I especially do NOT see a performance difference!
>_______________________________________________
>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+.