Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Questions regarding the SCTP Sockets API

From: "Daisy Chang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 03:37:42 -0500

Thanks to all of you who has provided comments on this. It helps a lot. I
hope that these questions would result in an amendment to the API draft to
clear up implementation issues such as this one.

Thanks,
Daisy

Daisy Chang
IBM Linux Technology Center
[email-masked]
Tel: (512)-838-4194    T/L: 678-4194
FAX: (512)-838-4663

Kacheong Poon <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 09/07/2001 02:25:27 PM

Please respond to Kacheong Poon <[email-masked]>

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:  Re: [Tsvwg] Questions regarding the SCTP Sockets API

> Right now I'm leaning toward saying that bindx() on a socket should be
> illegal after we have called listen() on it.  Mind you, this is for
> the base case where we do not have the addIP option.
>
> I refer to Table 1.  After the first bindx() notice that we have one
> socket with the endpoint (a1, a2: p0), and another socket with an
> overlapping (but different) endpoint (a1: p0).  RFC2960 explicitly
> defines endpoints on a given host as disjoint.  Is it really worth
> while violating this requirement?

Hmm, I thought we had talked about this before when changing the draft...
If you treat a socket as an endpoint, then according to the RFC 2960, we
cannot even have accept() (or sctp_peeloff() for UDP socket).  Once a new
socket is created by accept(), it shares exactly the same local address(es)
and port number as the listener socket...  Well, La Monte agreed that we
could have accept() (-:

The catch is that talking about an endpoint does not really make much
sense without relating to the association it belongs to.  Once we put
an endpoint in the context of an association, everything is clear.  The
listener socket does not share the "same address(es)" as the newly created
socket as it is not belonged to any association.  We need to talk about
addresses of both ends of an association and port numbers when talking
about an endpoint.  So a listener can keep on accepting new associations
as long as the remote address(es) or port numbers of those new requests
are different from the existing ones.  So I don't see why Table 1 posted
by Daisy should be made illegal.  It is the intention of sctp_bindx()
to allow that to happen.

                                                                        K.
Poon.

[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg