Subject: SCTP_FRAGMENT_INTERLEAVE=3 in future draft?

From: Anders Torger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 08:20:15 +0200

Just to check what the result of the discussion was, will there be an 
option 0, 1, 2 and 3 for SCTP_FRAGMENT_INTERLEAVE in future socket api 
drafts? (I hope so!). Where option 3 also required a stricter 
definition of sinfo_tsn.

 SCTP_FRAGMENT_INTERLEAVE setting:
  - 0 -- no interleave.
  - 1 -- interleave between associations (one-to-many only).
  - 2 -- interleave between streams.
  - 3 -- interleave between messages, stack may or may not support
         multiple partial deliveries on the same stream. Use
         sinfo_tsn to multiplex between different unordered messages on
         the same stream.

Today, when many stacks does not implement SCTP_FRAGMENT_INTERLEAVE, 
some stacks such as the Solaris stack work somewhere inbetween 2 & 3, 
interleaving between streams and possibly full unordered messages in 
the same stream.

/Anders Torger

---

From: Randall Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 08:30:45 -0400

Anders:

I have the document currently (unsent of course) with 0-2 in it.

I think we agreed to add 3 .. which is optional for an
implementation to support ..

I will add it .. and a couple of other cleanups before
I submit the next version.. in fact I will post the
changes again before I submit it..

But I don't have cycles until probably after May 9th :-0

R

-- 
Randall Stewart
NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc.
803-345-0369 <or> 803-317-4952 (cell)