Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

hello Michael, Andreas,
Can i know the requirement of addition of "assocId" in the
Associations
Structure?. If i am not wrong
in the earlier version the tagLocal is used to be associationID.
-Rgds
Harish K.


-----Original Message-----
From:
discussion-admin AT sctp.de

[mailto:discussion-admin AT sctp.de]On
Behalf Of
discussion-request AT sctp.de
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:31 PM
To:
discussion AT sctp.de
Subject: discussion digest, Vol 1 #113 - 7 msgs


Send discussion mailing list submissions to

discussion AT sctp.de

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/discussion
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

discussion-request AT sctp.de

You can reach the person managing the list at

discussion-admin AT sctp.de

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of discussion digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Unclear statement (Marjan Bozinovski)
2. Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael=20T=FCxen?=)
3. Re: Unclear statement (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael=20T=FCxen?=)
4. Re: Unclear statement (Marjan Bozinovski)
5. Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael=20T=FCxen?=)
6. sctp protocol numbers (Mark Oldham)
7. Re: sctp protocol numbers (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael=20T=FCxen?=)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: "Marjan Bozinovski"
<marjanb AT cpk.auc.dk>
To:
<discussion AT sctp.de>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:05:09 -0700
charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [SCTP-Discussion] Unclear statement
Reply-To:
discussion AT sctp.de

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


--__--__--

Message: 2
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael=20T=FCxen?=
<Michael.Tuexen AT micmac.franken.de>
To:
<discussion AT sctp.de>
Subject: Re(2): [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:12:34 +0200
Reply-To:
discussion AT sctp.de

Dear Marjan,

well, it does not make much sense for the terminal app to send data
on multiple streams, but for testing ...

So first of all I should say that the implementation does support
bundling only in a limited way. If you really want to implement it,
you need a timer which is started when a sctp=5Fsend is called and the
timer is not running yet. The user data is stored and not send.
If sctp=5Fsend is called when the timer is running, the user data is
also send. When the timer runs off, you really send the user data,
which means multiple DATA chunks bundled into one SCTP packet. This
bundling precedure is NOT implemented yet.

When does the implementation bundle=3F

- In case of retransmission multiple DATA chunks are bundled as describe=
d
in RFC 2960.
- If you call multiple times sctp=5Fsend within an callback function, fo=
r
example
the data=5Farrive=5Fnotification.
- In case of transmission, when it was not allowed to send out a SCTP pa=
cket
at the time sctp=5Fsend was called. So the userdata was stored and is =
send out
bundled later.

So if you want to have multiple DATA chunks belonging to different strea=
ms you
could modify the echo=5Fserver or echo=5Ftool to send out DATA chunks on=
all
streams
when a DATA chunk is received. If you do this in the data=5Farrive=5Fnot=
ification
you should see the behaviour you want to see. But I have to tested this
yet, but
I think it is a good idea and I will do this next week.

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,
>
>Thank you for your response. I have forgotten the rules you described b=
elow.
>
>My next question is related to the multi-streaming feature. The origina=
l
>terminal application sends data using only one stream. I have changed t=
he
>terminal application in such a manner that each time it sends a new dat=
a, it
>changes the stream IDs, incrementing it by 1. But, this does not essent=
ially
>changes the behaviour, because I still have one stream per transmitted
>chunk.
>So, the question is, how to modify the terminal application, so that, e=
very
>time it sends data, it can create several chunks, allocate to them diff=
erent
>stream IDs and bundle them in one SCTP packet, thus achieving to have
>several, simultaneously used, parallel streams=3F
>
>Best regards,
>Marjan
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael T=FCxen"
><Michael.Tuexen AT micmac.franken.de>
>To:
><discussion AT sctp.de>
>Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Path failure management
>
>
>> Dear Marjan,
>> see my comments below.
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>
>> --
>> e-mail:
>> Michael.Tuexen AT micmac.franken.de
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2001, Marjan Bozinovski
>> <marjanb AT cpk.auc.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I have used SCTP pre-release 12 (including the patch issued by Andre=
as
>> >Jungmaier, in his reply on "Network status change in Pre 12", sent o=
n the
>> >21st June) and deployed the following scenario:
>> >A dual-path communication between "terminal" and "echo=5Fserver", wh=
ile
>> >simulating a network failure.
>> >The both sides were dual-homed and were connected via two LANs. Afte=
r the
>> >association was established, the path 0 was declared as primary path=

---

• [SCTP-Discussion] RE: discussion digest, Vol 1 #113 - 7 msgs, hari, 07/17/2001
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [SCTP-Discussion] RE: discussion digest, Vol 1 #113 - 7 msgs, Tuexen Michael, 07/17/2001

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.