Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

This discussion is of particular interest to me. I may be trying to do
things the hard way. Your comments would be most appreciated.

In my application, I have a deamon that generates messages to be sent via
SCTP. I am designing a multiple-ULP-to-SCTP interface using the following
Helper Functions:

sctp_registerUdpCallback
sctp_unregisterUdpCallback
sctp_sendUdpData

and by implementing a message structure that will allow my SCTP daemon (that
links sctplib) to keep track of the different ULP associations and streams.
My ULPs will send UDP messages that are SCTP destined to 127.0.0.48 at port
50004, for example, which are registered with sctp_registerUdpCallback.

I would like to press ahead with my application. On the other hand, it
sounds like the sctplib group is implementing what will probably be a better
method.

Can you comment on my approach versus the SCTP protocol engine separation
approach that you describe? Are you able to predict when sctplib with this
feature will be available?

Thanks again,
Mike Mueller


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marjan Bozinovski"
<marjanb AT cpk.auc.dk>
To:
<discussion AT sctp.de>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement


> 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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+.