Subject: Re: sctp_peeloff()

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:57:11 +0100

Kacheong,
see my comments below.
Best regards
Michael

On Dec 11, 2003, at 5:25 PM, Kacheong Poon wrote:

> Michael Tuexen wrote:
>
>> I think you are using the streams in a way they are (initially)
>> not intended for. The problem is that you have only a
>> per association receiver window, not a per stream. So
>> it is very likely that one processing entity will block
>> the other.
>
> It seems that we are really discussing two different but
> related issues.  Your point of view is from the protocol
> level.  But we are talking about an app which tries to
> do the right thing.  And the question is whether it is
> useful to provide such an API for those apps to do their
> jobs.
>
What kind of function calls are you thinking about, what
are the semantic and how will you map this to the protocol
layer? My point is that you will promise independent receive
calls which will result in my mapping to the protocol layer
to a deadlock situation. But possibly there is another way
map your functions to the protocol.
>> On the other hand i do not see the usage of this. If you need a
>> demultiplexer of some sort you might want to do it above SCTP.
>
> The API is above SCTP.  We are not talking about changing
> the protocol.
>
OK.
> -- 
> 						K. Poon.
> 						[email-masked]