Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi,

I havn't tried testing out IPv6 functionality yet. I am not quite sure
how to go about doing it with regard to getting an IPv6 address to a host.

One way of doing it is by becoming a part of the 6bone or if my ISP has
a link to it and can assign my machine a v6 address. But is there any other
way of getting an v6 address to a host? Anything like a simulator which can
be used along with the v6 funtionality of the linux kernel to test the sctp
v6 code?!?

Regards,
Ajay

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tuexen Michael"
<Michael.Tuexen AT icn.siemens.de>
To:
<discussion AT sctp.de>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:02 PM
Subject: RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?


> We are testing the IPv6 stuff, but only on a testnet. Two computers
connected.
> Do you experience any problems regarding IPv6?
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
> Michael Tuexen Tel.: +49 89 722 47210
> Siemens AG Fax: +49 89 722 48212
> ICN WN CS SE 5 E-mail:
> Michael.Tuexen AT icn.siemens.de
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ajay Nambi
> > [SMTP:ajay.nambi AT wipro.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:20 PM
> > To:
> > discussion AT sctp.de
> > Subject: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?
> >
> > Hi,
> > This is an old thread that i am replying to. I had 2 queries
> >
> > Query1
> > -----------
> >
> > >>There might be some inefficiencies arising from using UDP and INET
protocol for IPC, but memory and >>processors are cheaper than maintaining
multiple methods of accomplishing the same goal.
> >
> >
> > >>The System V IPC had some lingering side-effects that had to be
manually cleaned in the event of >>system malfunction.
> >
> > Can you pls elucidate what this would be?
> >
> > >>The UDP with Unix protocol required using filenames as addresses. The
exposure of filenames to users >>was a small but unneeded risk to
operational safety
> >
> > Can you pls let me know abt the extent of risk and security threat that
exists due to this 'access' to file name.
> >
> > Since the Unix domain of sockets are intended for IPC between processes
on the same host & Berkeley derived implementations of the unix sockets are
twice as fast as tcp sockets(i'm not certain abt system V, but i guess it
should be on par with BSD), using these can improve the performance.
> >
> > Considering the above points, if i were to weigh the 'processor power
and memory' & 'side effects & security', which would be a better choice of
sockets? UNIX domain OR INET domain sockets.
> >
> >
> > Query2
> > -----------
> > And, has pre14 been tested in an actual IPv6 network (as a directly part
of 6bone or through IPv4 tunnelling !?!?) including multihoming with
multiple IPv6 interfaces?
> >
> >
> >
> > Kindly comment on these issues..
> > Regards,
> > Ajay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Mueller
> > <mailto:bhu5nji AT yahoo.com>
> > To:
> > discussion AT sctp.de
> >
> > <mailto:discussion AT sctp.de>
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 7:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Why Udp as the IPC mechanism?
> >
> > I would like to support the decision to use UDP for IPC. My support is
the result of using three different forms of IPC in my application: System V
IPC, Unix protocol UDP, and Internet Protocol UDP. Since INET protocol is
used elsewhere in my application, the alignment of IPC to the INET protocol
seemed a natural choice. There might be some inefficiencies arising from
using UDP and INET protocol for IPC, but memory and processors are cheaper
than maintaining multiple methods of accomplishing the same goal. The
System V IPC had some lingering side-effects that had to be manually cleaned
in the event of system malfunction. The UDP with Unix protocol required
using filenames as addresses. The exposure of filenames to users was a
small but unneeded risk to operational safety. Using UDP with INET protocol
provided determinism in specifying address/port without divulging this
information to system users. There is some risk of another program using my
address/port, but I!
> w!
> !
> ill be able to manage that risk.
> >
> > For completeness, I might add that UDP is a worthy choice since it is a
datagram protocol as is SCTP (ignoring for the moment that S in SCTP stands
for Stream).
> >
> > Just my two euros worth of opinion.
> > Mike
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sim Woon Chiat ICM CA MS MI E7 Extern
<mailto:WoonChiat.Sim.extern AT icn.siemens.de>
> > To:
> > 'discussion AT sctp.de'
> >
> > <mailto:'discussion AT sctp.de'>
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 5:09 AM
> > Subject: RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Why Udp as the IPC mechanism?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > firstly, i am making the assumption that you are referring to using UDP
as a IPC for the daemon, and i'm answering with that in mind.>
> > (i don't want to get into a debate into the various pros and cons of
each IPC mechanisms. there are people more qualified for that..)
> >
> > when the daemon was first started, the sctp library only supported
registering UDP callbacks with its event loop, and that was the easiest way
forward to get things going. Using other form of IPC means finding a way to
integrate them with the event loop of the sctp library. It was method that i
was comfortable with and in truth, no REAL comparsion of the merits of each
methods of IPC was done. that is of course not to say that a review may not
be needed. (but i won't be doing that now as my concern now is mainly in
maintaining the state integrity of the daemon)
> >
> > of course, proposed alternative (preferably in the form of source code)
is most welcome.
> >
> > cheers
> > wc
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ajay Nambi
> > [mailto:ajay.nambi AT wipro.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 5:46 AM
> > To:
> > discussion AT sctp.de
> > Subject: [SCTP-Discussion] Why Udp as the IPC mechanism?
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to know if there was any particular reason UDP was chosen
as the means for IPC. Wouldn't using 'shared memory' be more faster?
> >
> > Is there any big advantage in using UDP, compared to using 'shared
memory' & 'Queues'?
> >
> > Can anybody shed some light in this aspect?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Regards,
> > Ajay
> >
> > << File: Wipro_Disclaimer.txt >>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> discussion AT sctp.de
> http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to Wipro and/or its
Customers and
is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is
addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to you without
proper authority, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this
information in any manner is strictly prohibited. In such cases, please
notify us immediately at
mailto:mailadmin AT wipro.com
and delete this mail
from your records.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

• [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?, Ajay Nambi, 11/12/2001
  • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?, Michael Mueller, 11/12/2001
    • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?, Ajay Nambi, 11/12/2001
  • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?, Michael Mueller, 11/12/2001
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?, Tuexen Michael, 11/13/2001
    • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?, Ajay Nambi, 11/15/2001
  • RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?, Tuexen Michael, 11/15/2001

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.