Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:16:44 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Randall Stewart <randall@stewart.chicago.il.us> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: SCTP in FreeBSD 5.x/current Message-ID: <417A67CC.90E11C98@freebsd.org> References: <4177C8AD.6060706@freebsd.org> <20041021153933.GK13756@empiric.icir.org> <4177E25E.804639E@freebsd.org> <20041021213248.223cab2c.molter@tin.it> <x7r7nrgsol.wl%suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp> <4179ACB8.4020108@ieee.org> <417A572A.9080306@stewart.chicago.il.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Randall Stewart wrote: > Anyway.. I do think it is stable enough for inclusion in > stable BSD... if you have another 4.x round.. BUT we have > not went in and fully got things working on 5.x... I know > one of our team members (Kozuka-san) has made an effort > to make it compile.. but it as yet does not function :-0 > > I also, before patch 25, would like to finish a third round > of performance optimization. I finally have a second machine > with a Gig-E interface and 2.XMhz .. so I think I can > try to squeak it up a bit more... ah.. plans for next > week if I can find the cycles :-o > > Anyway.. after patch-25 I intend on taking my new machine > to the 5.3 strain and trying to figure out what I need > to do to make it work :-0 (maybe patch26 :-D) Randall, I'm willing to work with you to get SCTP into FreeBSD-CURRENT. All new stuff has to go into -current first before it is allowed to be backported to 5.x and 4.x. -current and 5.x are not much different so a port by you to 5.x will usually work with -current as well. What I can't do is extensive porting/testing of SCTP. But I can "hold your hand" and support you from the FreeBSD team side. The largest difference between 4.x and 5.x is proper SMP locking. The socket layer is fine-grained SMP locked and the underlying transport protocols have to be aware of that to get decent performance. But we can work that out based on the experience we have with locking down the TCP code. Don't be afraid, that way it's less hard than it seems on the first glance. But nontheless having a simple and more secure replacement for T/TCP is a worthwile goal and I will do it, even if just for fun. Keeps me sharp on the TCP code. ;-) -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?417A67CC.90E11C98>