SCTP in KAME / Re: Removing T/TCP and replacing itwithsomething simpler

[Peter Lei]

SUZUKI Shinsuke wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:58:32 -0500
>>>>>>peter.lei at ieee.org(Peter Lei)  said:
> 
> 
>>While the SCTP API hasn't gone through last call, it's fairly
>>stable and we have both "converted" many applications from TCP
>>to SCTP using the sockets API, as well as had portability between
>>the KAME SCTP stack and the linux stack for some test applications
>>used at the last interop event (except for the standard sockets
>>issues that one runs into even for TCP like no sin_length field
>>in the sockaddr struct).
>>I'm not aware of any KAME SNAP compilation failures w/and w/o SCTP.
>>The major changes to our SCTP code when it gets committed into KAME
>>has been that of code format/style.
> 
> 
> What I found was the following two issues.  Although these two are
> technically quite trivial, what I was fearing was a lack of report to
> KAME, since this may mean a lack of KAME-SCTP users.
> 
>      - inconsistency between KAME specific kernel code and SCTP leads
>        to an kernel compilation error.
>        	  Of course, it's a technically trivial bug and our own bug.

This might be due to the fact that the SCTP CVS repository code is
sometimes more up-to-date than the KAME one, so we can get out of
sync.  Randy releases patch kits based on some point in the KAME
repository and we know it compiles (and runs) fine at that point,
but by the time it is committed into the KAME repository, things may
have changed.

>      - including SCTP in getaddrinfo() causes 'configure' script error
>        in many ports applications.
>        	  This is also a trivial problem, and maybe specific to KAME SCTP.
> 	  And some of such ports are already fixed when I encounter this
> 	  problem.
> 	  (e.g. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/lang/python/files/patch-configure.diff?r1=1.7&r2=1.8)

Ok... I understand what you mean by compile errors now.  I haven't
done too much with existing apps but haven't run into this at all
much yet.

> But now I understand that lack of report does not mean a lack of
> testing users (since SCTP-lovers seems communicating directly to your
> team).  So I can be much more optimistic now, and don't object to
> merging it into -current, since such trivial bugs can be fixed easily
> in -current.  (I myself haven't tested SCTP very well, so I cannot
> comment on its stability itself.  But at least, SCTP does not seem to
> affect the behavior of other protocols)

I understand... the lack of bugs filed might lead you to believe
the code isn't being used at all.

> Thanks and sorry if you feel my previous comments were insulting...

No, no... not at all.  I just wanted to be sure that people know
that the stack is indeed being used and that people are finding
bugs and we are fixing them :-)

regards,
--peter

> ----
> SUZUKI, Shinsuke @ KAME Project
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3174 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/attachments/20041026/155b9156/smime.bin