Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:02:26 -0700 From: "Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@pinyon.org> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing T/TCP and replacing it with something simpler Message-ID: <20041022020226.A8D34103A028@feyerabend.hq.pinyon.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> <20041022014707.GA45582@crodrigues.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greetings, It is not easy to get kame up and running, and I know this because I have. It is beyond all ordinary production installations. And as Craig notes it's not possible[1] in the 5* line yet. Maybe Randall would like to chip in on whether BSD SCTP is ready for prime time in FreeBSD. But do not underestimate the gains this protocol provides for fault tolerant server applications. Russell [1] It's been two months since I tried. : : On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:32:48PM +0200, Marco Molteni wrote: : > SCTP in KAME is complete, stable and fully supported. : > It is mainly developed by the SCTP RFC author, Randall Stewart. : : Randall has been maintaining his SCTP stack on FreeBSD 4.x, : OpenBSD, and NetBSD. It has recently been ported to Darwin. : : : > : > A T/TCP alternative as you are describing sounds very : > similar to PR-SCTP (Partial Reliability SCTP). (Don't let the : > name fool you, please read the internet draft). : : Interesting stuff: : http://www.portaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-ietf-tsvwg-prsctp/ : : > : > There is at least another kernel-level open source implementation, : > for Linux, plus other user-level implementations. : : There is one kernel implementation of SCTP in : the Linux 2.6 series of kernels ( http://lksctp.sourceforge.net ), : and another kernel level implementation available separately : ( http://www.openss7.org/sctp.html ). : : SCTP is an IETF standard, and a lot of people are getting interested : in it. It would be nice to have it in FreeBSD, especially since : it is showing up in the Linux distributions. : : The only issue with Randall's implementation is that : it is only for 4.x.....I looked a while back at porting it to 5.x/CURRENT.... : there is some work that needs to be done, i.e. using : the new zone(9) API for allocating memory, and probably also : getting the locking right. : : I don't know how much overlap there is with what Andre is going to : implement, but I thought I would throw the information out there : for those who may be interested. :) : : -- : Craig Rodrigues : http://crodrigues.org : rodrigc@crodrigues.org : _______________________________________________ : freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list : http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net : To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041022020226.A8D34103A028>