Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Dear Mike,
see my comments below.
Best regards
Michael

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

On Sun, Jul 15, 2001, M. Mueller
<bhu5nji AT yahoo.com>
wrote:

>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?
It seems that we are talking about the same concepts. A group (inside Siemens)
which is using SCTP has developed such an SCTP deamon and a library your ULP
is linking to to provide the seperation.

Currently I'm planing to include this stuff in the next prerelease
scheduled for
release within the next two weeks. But I have to test this stuff before
the release.
I hope this is helpful for you,
Best regards
Michael
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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+.