[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5395FFB7.4060604@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:40:55 -0400
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SCTP connect() both ways
On 06/09/2014 05:41 AM, David Laight wrote:
> When SCTP is used for protocols like M3UA it seems common
> to configure both port numbers for a connection (typically
> to the same value).
>
> Rather than having one system call connect() and the other
> listen(), both systems really want to try to establish the
> connection by sending out INIT chunks.
The correct way to do this is to not used connect() call.
Both systems should do a listen() and then use an implicit
connect by using an sctp_sendmsg() or similar calls to
send the data.
>
> The connection then gets established as soon as the second of the
> two systems attempts to establish it.
>
> However if the remote system responds with an ABORT (or maybe
> an ICMP error is received) the Linux SCTP stack immediately
> reports 'connect failed'.
> For these sorts of connections it would be much better if the
> received ABORT just increased the retry timer to large value.
>
> Thoughts?
We don't know why the remote ABORTED. There could be a lot of
reasons. It is up to the application to retry. This is no
different then receiving an RST in response to a SYN.
-vlad
>
> David
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" 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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists