[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-coene-multi6-sctp-00.txt

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
 and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
 post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
 message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
 address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
 automatically accepted. ]


Dear all,

the way Lode describes it is OK. However, there is some
room for implementations...

Best regards
Michael

On 24. Feb 2004, at 10:28 Uhr, Coene Lode wrote:

I am not a specialist on socket issues.. But Michael & Randall might
know a
bit more on that...

-----Original Message-----
From: Barany, Pete [mailto:pbarany@qualcomm.com]
Sent: zaterdag 21 februari 2004 19:29
To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-coene-multi6-sctp-00.txt


In the SCTP sockets API Internet draft
(draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-07.txt), there is a sendmsg() flag
(MSG_ADDR_OVER) for the one-to-many style that allows the application
to
request that the SCTP stack override the primary destination address.
Do
implementations honor (mandatory) this request, or can the SCTP stack
override it? Thanks.


My take is:
The implementation must send the msg on the IP address provided
instead of the primary destination address.
But if the address provided by the application is not reachable at that
particular moment, then the SCTP implementation will try any of the
alternative addresses of the association(including the primary
destination
address)


Pete


Yours sincerely,
Lode