From: Jason House (jhouse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-14 09:26:55
Well, I agree that any exprerimental/not widely used protocol should be
able to run over another more common protocol... for a number of
reasons... One would be privilages... another would be recognition by
firewalls, etc... I don't think that it would be tough to make code use
either a raw or a UDP socket...
Brian Gray wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 12:08 PM, Jason House wrote:
> > * How easy will support for SCTP be to work into the boost socket
> > library? ... and how easy would the interface be to use?
> I looked at the docs on www.sctp.de and downloaded the source, and the
> fatal flaw seems to be what I found in adaptation.c. It appears both
> the routing socket and the sctp socket are built on raw IP. At least
> on Linux, Darwin, and Windows NT/2000, you need root privileges to open
> one of these. Thus, the daemon to handle the protocol will have to be
> installed by and run as an administrator, and will therefore not be
> usable by many clients who do not control the machine they use.
> I think a UDP-based implementation rather than a raw IP-based one would
> do as well (with some wasted overhead) and not need admin privileges or
> the cooperation of the operating system manufacturer to get installed.
> Does anyone know if there is a UDP-based implementation?
> -- Brian
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk