Message-ID: <529DCF42.1070800@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:32:02 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Sun Paul <paulrbk@...il.com>
CC:	Karl Heiss <kheiss@...il.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP

On 12/02/2013 09:19 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
> so in this case, says
> 
> (NODE-A) IP-B send INIT to IP-X (NODE-B), and then IP-Y (NODE-B)
> returns INIT_ACK to IP-B (NODE-A)
> 
> this is also treated as a valid, am I correct?

As long as IP-X (Node-B) is present in the address list of the INIT-ACK
chunk, yes.

There is the code in __sctp_rcv_lookup_harder() that looks for other
adddresses in the INIT and INIT-ACK chunks.

-vlad
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 12/02/2013 08:39 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
>>> Another question
>>>
>>> if a wrong source IP is used, does the association still classified as normal?
>>
>> What do you mean my wrong source IP?  As long as the address is part of
>> the association, it can be used.
>>
>> -vlad
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Sun Paul <paulrbk@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> Thanks Vlad
>>>>
>>>> I checked on the route, and it looks correct.
>>>>
>>>> [root@...alhost ~]# ip route get 11.1.1.1 from 110.1.1.1
>>>> 11.1.1.1 from 110.1.1.1 via 110.1.1.254 dev eth1
>>>>     cache  mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
>>>>
>>>> [root@...alhost ~]# ip route get 11.1.1.1 from 120.1.1.1
>>>> 11.1.1.1 from 120.1.1.1 via 120.1.1.254 dev eth2
>>>>     cache  mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
>>>>
>>>> [root@...alhost ~]# ip route get 12.1.1.1 from 120.1.1.1
>>>> 12.1.1.1 from 120.1.1.1 via 120.1.1.254 dev eth2
>>>>     cache  mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
>>>>
>>>> [root@...alhost ~]# ip route get 12.1.1.1 from 110.1.1.1
>>>> 12.1.1.1 from 110.1.1.1 via 110.1.1.254 dev eth1
>>>>     cache  mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
>>>>
>>>> so, if this is not being handled in LKSCTP, is it possible to suggest
>>>> a way how we can achieve it?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/2013 10:45 AM, Karl Heiss wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 11:03 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>> How LKSCTP select which source address to use for the INIT_ACK or
>>>>>>>> HB_ACK? below is the testing result where a router is located in the
>>>>>>>> middle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before starting the application. the packet on eth1 and eth2 are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eth1
>>>>>>>> 0 packets dropped by kernel
>>>>>>>> [root@...alhost ~]# tcpdump -i eth1 -s 0 -nn
>>>>>>>> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
>>>>>>>> listening on eth1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes
>>>>>>>> 11:24:14.262489 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>>> [init tag: 28362903] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>>> 11:24:14.262522 IP 110.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [ABORT]
>>>>>>>> 11:24:14.539486
>>>>>>>> 11:24:16.262488 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>>> [init tag: 29391734] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>>> 11:24:16.262520 IP 110.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [ABORT]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eth2
>>>>>>>> [root@...alhost ~]# tcpdump -i eth2 -s 0 -nn
>>>>>>>> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
>>>>>>>> listening on eth2, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When starting the application. the packet show as below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eth1
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.261511 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>>> [init tag: 26256828] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.263513 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ECHO]
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.264518 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.563511 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eth2
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.261604 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT ACK]
>>>>>>>> [init tag: 3478239387] [rwnd: 131072] [OS: 5] [MIS: 5] [init TSN:
>>>>>>>> 2330749678]
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.263583 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ACK]
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.264548 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.264652 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 120.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.264705 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>> 11:26:02.563543 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the above result, you can see that the INIT, COOKIE ECHO and
>>>>>>>> HB_REQ originated from 12.1.1.1 on eth1, but the ACK (INIT_ACK,
>>>>>>>> COOKIE_ACK, HB_ACK) are returned on eth2 using source address
>>>>>>>> 120.1.1.1 instead of 110.1.1.1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why LKSCTP use 120.1.1.1 as source instead of 110.1.1.1?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For simple ICMP ping test, it is normal, but not for SCTP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eth1
>>>>>>>> 11:30:02.824548 IP 12.1.1.1 > 110.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 37178,
>>>>>>>> seq 12, length 64
>>>>>>>> 11:30:02.824559 IP 110.1.1.1 > 12.1.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 37178,
>>>>>>>> seq 12, length 64
>>>>>>>> 11:30:03.825551 IP 12.1.1.1 > 110.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 37178,
>>>>>>>> seq 13, length 64
>>>>>>>> 11:30:03.825561 IP 110.1.1.1 > 12.1.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 37178,
>>>>>>>> seq 13, length 64
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eth2
>>>>>>>> 11:30:34.027687 IP 11.1.1.1 > 120.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 46138,
>>>>>>>> seq 2, length 64
>>>>>>>> 11:30:34.027697 IP 120.1.1.1 > 11.1.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 46138,
>>>>>>>> seq 2, length 64
>>>>>>>> 11:30:35.027686 IP 11.1.1.1 > 120.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 46138,
>>>>>>>> seq 3, length 64
>>>>>>>> 11:30:35.027694 IP 120.1.1.1 > 11.1.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 46138,
>>>>>>>> seq 3, length 64
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Below is the route information
>>>>>>>> #route -n
>>>>>>>> Kernel IP routing table
>>>>>>>> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
>>>>>>>> 110.1.1.0       0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 eth1
>>>>>>>> 120.1.1.0       0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 eth2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # ip route show
>>>>>>>> 110.1.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 110.1.1.1
>>>>>>>> 120.1.1.0/24 dev eth2  proto kernel  scope link  src 120.1.1.1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since we are using iproute2, so we will have dedicate routing table
>>>>>>>> per interface
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # ip route show table SCTP1
>>>>>>>> default via 110.1.1.254 dev eth1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # ip route show table SCTP2
>>>>>>>> default via 120.1.1.254 dev eth2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # ip rule ls
>>>>>>>> 0: from all lookup local
>>>>>>>> 101: from 110.1.1.1 lookup SCTP1
>>>>>>>> 102: from 120.1.1.1 lookup SCTP2
>>>>>>>> 32766: from all lookup main
>>>>>>>> 32767: from all lookup default
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How LKSCTP select source address to reply? If we know how it works,
>>>>>>>> then we may know what is going wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LKSCTP will prefer the address returned from the routing table as long
>>>>>>> as it is one of the addresses that is bound by the socket and are usable
>>>>>>> by the association.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the address returned from the route lookup is not part of the
>>>>>>> association, then lksctp attempts to lookup routes using one of the
>>>>>>> source addresses it has available.  Usually the first lookup succeeds
>>>>>>> due to the host-model implementation in linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may want to change your rule set to be destination based.  Then
>>>>>>> in the table associated with the rule, specify the source address
>>>>>>> you want to be used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -vlad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had similar qualms myself about this behavior, and I honestly
>>>>>> don't know what the correct answer should be...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, shouldn't the source address "just work" for
>>>>>> acknowledgements? If the spec explicitly states that the ACK should
>>>>>> have a source address that matches the destination of the chunk being
>>>>>> ACKed, why should someone have to configure this behavior outside of
>>>>>> the SCTP stack by default? Is it a technical limitation, or is this
>>>>>> done for a particular reason?  I can understand needing to override
>>>>>> the behavior, but why isn't the default "sane"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the results are sane, they simply may not match expectations.
>>>>> SCTP spec doesn't say anything about source address selection.  It
>>>>> says that a response should be send back to the source of the request.
>>>>> This is being done in both cases, i.e. the destination address in
>>>>> INIT-ACK matches the source of the INIT.
>>>>>
>>>>> The spec does contain the MAY text that allows finer control of source
>>>>> addresses, but lksctp doesn't seem to implement that.  Whenever we've
>>>>> tried, we couldn't get the generic mechanism working to please everyone,
>>>>> as everyone had slightly different configurations and expectations.  So
>>>>> we left it to the rules engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this setup, it just appears that the default routing is not what you
>>>>> expect.  You can easily check this with 'ip route get' command.  If it
>>>>> is not what you want linux allows you to change that via ip rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> -vlad
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:10:49AM +0800, Sun Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank for your reply. If it is based on the destination IP to find the
>>>>>>>>>> best route, why the problem didn't happen on single-homing sample?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because You only ever use one address from NODE A (12.1.1.1)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the single-homing sample that provided in the original email, both
>>>>>>>>>> of the interfaces (eth1 and eth2) are presented on NODE-B during the
>>>>>>>>>> test. However, the LKSCTP library know to use the interface eth1 to
>>>>>>>>>> respond to the SCTP request.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, because it does a route lookup to each of the two ip addresses to NODE B,
>>>>>>>>> and in both lookups, the route indicates that only one source address should be
>>>>>>>>> used (12.1.1.1).  If you issue a ip route show command, you'll see that routes
>>>>>>>>> to both address on NODE B match on a rule that specifies the same src address
>>>>>>>>> and interface be used.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - PS
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Sun Paul <paulrbk@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank for your reply. If it is based on the destination IP to find the
>>>>>>>>>>> best route, why the problem didn't happen on single-homing sample?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the single-homing sample that provided in the original email, both
>>>>>>>>>>> of the interfaces (eth1 and eth2) are presented on NODE-B during the
>>>>>>>>>>> test. However, the LKSCTP library know to use the interface eth1 to
>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the SCTP request.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - PS
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2013 08:03 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have a problem on using LKSCTP to form a 4 ways multi-homing network.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Node-A has 2 IP addresses in different subnets, known as IP-A (eth1),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IP-B (eth2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Node-B has 2 IP addresses in different subnets, known as IP-X (eth1),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IP-Y (eth2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, this is not a 4 way multi-homed network.  As far as each
>>>>>>>>>>>> SCTP association is concerned, it has only 2 destinations to send to
>>>>>>>>>>>> so it has only 2 ways to get there.  The fact that you have multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>> local addresses doesn't mean that every local address can and should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be used to connect to the remote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the four way paths are shown below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. IP-A (11.1.1.1) to IP-X (11.1.1.11)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. IP-B (12.1.1.1) to IP-Y (12.1.1.11)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. IP-A (11.1.1.1) to IP-Y (12.1.1.11)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IP-B (12.1.1.1) to IP-X (11.1.1.11)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, actually you only have 2 paths:  one to IPX and one to IP-Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which source address you choose is based on routing policy
>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions and is outside the scope of SCTP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the HB/HB_ACK is normal for the paths " IP-A to IP-X" and "IP-B to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IP-Y", but it is not correct for the rest of two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because linux is using a host addressing model, not an interface
>>>>>>>>>>>> addressing model.  SCTP stack simply finds the best source address
>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be used to reach IP-X and it happens to be IP-A.  So that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is what it is going to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above explains why you are seeing what you describe below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the end, linux SCTP implementation determines paths solely based
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the destination address.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are using iproute2 to form 2 table such that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IP-B arrives on IP-X, it will know how to route back to IP-B on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same interface, i.e (eth1). Same logic for the path "IP-A to IP-X".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we observed here is that when 12.1.1.1 sends INIT to 11.1.1.11,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LKSCTP will send back the INIT_ACK to 12.1.1.1 using 12.1.1.11 but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the IP 11.1.1.11.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above operation makes the subsequence HB/HB_ACK in using wrong IP address.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TCP trace on eth1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.058640 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [init tag: 19933036] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.061634 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ECHO]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.062642 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.062846 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.361811 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.661791 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.961791 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TCP trace on eth2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.058755 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [init tag: 424726157] [rwnd: 131072] [OS: 5] [MIS: 5] [init TSN:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3340756356]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.061696 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.062663 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.062791 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.361777 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.661772 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.961772 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:42.161771 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:42.461770 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:42.675770 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we are using single homing, there is no problem on the SCTP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. Below is the TCP trace on eth1 using sctp_test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.356727 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [init tag: 32516609] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.356811 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [init tag: 3168861995] [rwnd: 131072] [OS: 10] [MIS: 16] [init TSN:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1877695021]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.357727 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ECHO]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.357788 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.358724 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.358740 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.379715 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [DATA]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (B)(E) [TSN: 0] [SID: 0] [SSEQ 0] [PPID 0x3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.379735 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [SACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [cum ack 0] [a_rwnd 131064] [#gap acks 0] [#dup tsns 0]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.657716 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.657732 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the observations, it seems that the LKSCTP library is not able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the original local address when multi-homing is being used. Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anyway can be resolved it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>>>>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>>>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>
>>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists