> Quoting Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: initial set of "direct" SDP tests in netperf > > Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen) wrote: > >>>Please note that you should *only* ever stick the SDP family value > >>>in the socket(3) call. All addresses for connect, bind etc > >>>are AF_INET, since SDP uses IP addresses for everything. > >> > >>Sounds like something trying to be just a little bit pregnant. > >> > >>Thankfully, I'm only munging the getaddrinfo() data for the > >>local endpoint. > > > > > >See bug https://bugs.openfabrics.org//show_bug.cgi?id=294, I agree > >connect() and bind() should allow AF_INET_SDP. > > I was poking around - it would be nice if they could take AF_INET_SDP - I > have to wonder if IPPROTO_SDP is actually better, but seeing there has been > some discussion there (but not having read all of it) I'm just going to go > with the flow...
Basically everyone said "it does not matter". Do you think IPPROTO_SDP is better? > >About the "direct" SDP tests, instead of copy/pasting the TCP code, how > >about if you just had a command-line argument that specified SDP, like > >you do with neterver -6 to specify IPv6 instead of IPv4? > > Well, that could then require I start adding some backflips in "common" > code such as where I call getaddrinfo(). Besides, I've already finished > the first set of cut and paste :) > > >Speaking of IPv6, does netperf work with IPv6 on Linux? > > Yes, although "Linux" seems to have some issue with link-scope addresses. -- MST _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
