Re: SCTP?
Re: SCTP?
- Subject: Re: SCTP?
- From: Peter Sichel <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:06:22 -0400
On May 29, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Jens Alfke wrote:
(One aspect I'm leery of is NAT support; I can imagine that most
NATs wouldn't know what to do with it.)
I suspect many NATs are similar to mine, they would not recognize the
transport protocol so would treat the packet like ICMP or IP
encapsulated VPN. As long as you only needed a single exposed host or
SCTP connection through your NAT, it would probably work. As soon as
you fire up a second SCTP connection, the two connections would clash
causing packets to be mis-delivered.
Any opinions about the protocol — is it mainstream enough to be
worth using?
Adding NAT support for SCTP is complicated by the 32-bit CRC checksum
used which doesn't allow incremental checksum modification. If there
was any desire for future NAT support, using a standard Internet style
checksum would have been a better choice. There's an awful lot of NAT
gear out there that won't be upgraded anytime soon. Tunneling over
UDP or getting IPv6 connectivity without NAT might be easier.
Whether it's worth using depends on who your customers are. For
private in house networks or dedicated circuits, it could be fine.
For widespread deployment to personal computers, probably not at this
time.
Kind Regards,
- Peter
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macnetworkprog mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >SCTP? (From: Jens Alfke <email@hidden>) |