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?
To the extent that I have no idea what is really happening under the
covers with SDP I would say yes.
My understanding is that the only difference is that "SDP" is used
rather than "TCP." That being the case, then I would think it
would/should be like using say UDP vs TCP vs SCTP (ignoring the obvoius
protocol differences).
Each are "INET" sockets using "INET" addressing, the difference is the
layer-four (transport) protocol being used, which is selected via
IPPROTO_TCP vs IPPROTO_UDP vs IPPROTO_SCTP.
And when/if IPv6 is supported, then there shouldn't (?) be any need to
have an "extra" AF_INET6_SDP - one would use AF_INET and AF_INET6 with
IPPROTO_SDP.
Also, an application making use of getaddrinfo() (as all well-written
apps are supposed to be these days :) wouldn't have to worry about name
to IP resolution in the general case (where a protocol is not provided
with the hints) when wanting to use SDP directly - it still calls
getaddrinfo() with AF_INET, AF_INET6 or AF_UNSPEC as before, no need to
worry that AF_INET_SDP is not groked by getaddrinfo().
rick jones
from the SDP/IB peanut gallery
_______________________________________________
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
