Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:19:27 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heads up --- Thinking about UDP and tunneling Message-ID: <200812121819.27990.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <11F9C4F4-E893-46DA-96C3-1984131159D6@lakerest.net> References: <D72E9703-C8E7-4A21-A71E-A4B4C2D7E8F4@lakerest.net> <200812111412.16757.max@love2party.net> <11F9C4F4-E893-46DA-96C3-1984131159D6@lakerest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 12 December 2008 13:56:38 Randall Stewart wrote: > On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Max Laier wrote: > > On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote: ... > Another thing... kinda weird.. when I have this thing working with > SCTP and I > let the SCTP stack try to initialize the socket right away.. I get bogus > results. The port is actually binding.. but yet it cant be sent to. If I > unbind i.e. close the socket that got created.. then do a sysctl to re- > add > the same port.. all works fine. > > For now I am going to make SCTP NOT do this.. and have to add it to the > sysctl's in /etc/sysctl.conf to add UDP tunneling. > > Only other solution would be a timer in the transport after startup to > do this binding... You can probably do a SYSINIT in SI_SUB_PROTO_DOMAIN around the middle and you should be golden. If it turns out that this is not late enough you can check sys/kernel.h for later SI_SUBs that might be fitting. > I was wondering if I would see a race in the protocol stack > initialization.. basically > my guess is SCTP initializes ahead of UDP.. so its actually a wonder I > did not crash ;-D -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200812121819.27990.max>