[Tipc-discussion] Re: status of UDP

[Jon M. <jon...@er...>]

Ok, I guess the only right thing to do is to remove it then.
I will do it next time I check in code.

/jon

Mark Haverkamp wrote:


On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 12:36, Jon Maloy wrote:

  

Hi Mark,

I have not tested TIPC/UDP it on 2.6 at all; last time I did it was

with 2.4 on Vmware, not on SMP hardware. There it worked fine,

but evidently something has changed in the kernel since then.



I have a feeling that we are fighting losing battle here, trying

to use UDP in a way not anticipated in the Linux implementation.

I also got the feedback from IETF a few months ago that UDP was

very undesired as a carrier of TIPC, because it can be used over

the Internet in an uncontrollable way, without the inherent flow control

they want to se in all internet protocols. (Basically, I think they

would like to kill UDP as a protocol altogether, if they could.)



If you somhow can find an easy workaround for the problem you

see, it is ok to do it, otherwise I don't think we should spend much
time

on it. We should rather remove it completely for now, and at some later

moment concentrate our effort to carry TIPC over TCP or SCTP.



    



I don't think that there is an easy workaround.  I looked at the udp

code last year with the original tipc and 2.5 and saw the same

problems.  I tried to use a kernel thread to process the UDP messages so

it would be in a process context but never got it to work right.



Mark.







  

What I have in mind is that we introduce a generic media

adaptation that only has the task of conveying sent/received packets

to/from a TIPC deamon in user space. It could be this daemon's task

to set up connections and transport the packets from node to node,

ensure encryption etc.

Performance would of course suffer, but for Internet protocols execution

time in the stack is not the dominating factor anyway.

For transporting packages to/from such a deamon we can use ioctl,

Netlink, or, why not, TIPC itself.



But these are future visions, I think.



Regards /Jon