-
sctp
SCTP Discussions
Text archives Help
- From: "elie" <elie AT flashmail.com>
- To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen AT micmac.franken.de>, elie AT flashmail.com
- Cc: sctp-discussion AT sctp.de
- Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Unregisterinstace question
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:21:16 +0800
- List-archive: <http://lists.franken.de/pipermail/sctp-discussion>
- List-id: SCTP Discussions <sctp-discussion.sctp.de>
Michael,
According to the information you provided I've added a
workaround where the application is currently closing any
new arriving associations (in case the unregisterinstance
function fails, it searches for those).
Note that this behavior occurs on load tests (several
clients try to connect to the server) and not regularly. I'm
using abort and not shutdown because the main application is
closing- and it's a windows application so the user is
impatient:-) -no much time left to handle anything here.
Thank you for your help,
Eli.
>Hi Eli,
>
>I would prefer sctp_shutdown() instead of sctp_abort(), but
>there is no way in the API to tell an instance that it
>should not accept associations anymore... That
>functionality is missing in the API. Interesting, this
>problem did not show up for years...
>
>Best regards
>Michael
>
>On Mar 30, 2008, at 1:53 PM, elie wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I've written a server application which waits for
>> connections. In the library, it call
>> SCTP_registerInstance and accepts new associations.
>>
>> After some associations are accepted (say about 10), I
>> would like to terminate the operation (e.g. the user
>> closes the application). What I'm doing is calling, for
>> each associations, SCTP_abort than
>> SCTP_deleteAssociation. Once all the associations are
>> deleted, SCTP_unregisterInstance is called.
>>
>> Now this is fine, the problem is that during the time the
>> associations are deleted, new ones are being accepted, so
>> SCTP_unregisterInstance fails (probably because there are
>> now new associations).
>>
>> Is there a way to prevent the instance from accepting new
>> associations before unregistering it, or is there a
>> better design to it?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Eli.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sctp-discussion mailing list
>> sctp-discussion AT sctp.de
>> http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/sctp-discussion
>>
>
- Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Unregisterinstace question, elie, 04/03/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.
