First login?
Lost password?
 
 
sctp-discussion AT lists.franken.de 
SCTP Discussions

Text archives Help


RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tuexen Michael <Michael.Tuexen AT icn.siemens.de>
  • To: "'discussion AT sctp.de'" <discussion AT sctp.de>
  • Subject: RE: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?
  • Date: Thu Nov 15 12:12:00 2001
  • List-id: SCTP Discussions <discussion.sctp.de>
Dear all,

simply connect two computers using a LAN and
configure IPv6 addresses on the hosts.
You do not have to have a connection to the 6Bone.

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: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:11 AM
> To:
> discussion AT sctp.de
> Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Sockets for IPC: Unix / TCP sockets?
>
> 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
> << File: Wipro_Disclaimer.txt >>


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.

Top of page