Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Dear Michael,

Does the separation of the SCTP protocol engine and the ULP into different
UNIX processes, implies that several applications using their own SCTP
associations can exist at the same time?

Best regards,
Marjan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tüxen"
<Michael.Tuexen AT micmac.franken.de>
To:
<discussion AT sctp.de>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement


> Dear Marjan,
>
> this seperation of the SCTP protocol engine and the ULP into
> different UNIX processes has been implemented and I will try
> to include this code in the next release of the library. The
> communication between these processes will be based on UDP.
>
> Nevertheless the text is somewhat misleading. You can have right
> now severeal ULPs in the sense that you can have one UNIX process
> which incorporates
> - the SCTP engine
> - an echo server
> - a discard server
> - a daytime server
> A demo code for this will also be included in the next prerelease.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
>
> --
> e-mail:
> Michael.Tuexen AT micmac.franken.de
>
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2001, Marjan Bozinovski
> <marjanb AT cpk.auc.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >Dear Michael, dear Andreas,
> >
> >Please explain me the following statement that I have found in the SCTP
> >documentation:
> >
> >"So far, there has been only one ULP instance. In the future, the
> >communication between SCTP and the ULP shall be done with a locally bound
> >UDP socket that will be used to register a ULP instance with the SCTP
> >instance. Thus it will be possible to asynchronously call functions of
the
> >SCTP protocol engine from a process that sends data on a local UDP
socket,
> >and is passed the results and other notification messages back over that
> >socket."
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Marjan
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>

---

• RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Off Topic - M2UA/M2PA open source, Tuexen Michael, 07/13/2001
  • [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management, Marjan Bozinovski, 07/13/2001
    • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management, Michael Tüxen, 07/13/2001
      • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management, Marjan Bozinovski, 07/14/2001
        • [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement, Marjan Bozinovski, 07/14/2001
          • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement, Michael Tüxen, 07/14/2001
            • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement, Marjan Bozinovski, 07/14/2001
              • Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement, Michael Tüxen, 07/14/2001
              • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement, M. Mueller, 07/15/2001
              • Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement, Michael Tüxen, 07/15/2001
              • Re: Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement, M. Mueller, 07/16/2001
        • Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management, Michael Tüxen, 07/14/2001
      • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management, Marjan Bozinovski, 07/18/2001
        • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management, Andreas Jungmaier, 07/18/2001
          • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management, Marjan Bozinovski, 07/18/2001
            • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management, Andreas Jungmaier, 07/18/2001

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.