> Quoting Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: initial set of "direct" SDP tests in netperf > > >>However, I think that is the "better" problem - SDP is a "protocol" not > >>an address family. (Again, based on what little I understand about > >>SDP).
True but it's not an IP-based protocol. So IPPROTO_SDP is kind of weird: the comment in netinet/in.h on my system says: /* Standard well-defined IP protocols. */ > >I see why this makes sens for you, but in what sense is it a "better" > >problem? > > Because it isn't trying to describe a change in protocol as a change in > addressing. It makes getting to SDP look like getting to any other > transport-layer protocol - eg UDP, TCP, or SCTP. My intuitive guessing > suggests that fewer folks use getprotobyname() than getaddrinfo(). However, for people that do - protocol numbers are assigned by IANA, while AF numbers are basically free-running numbers. Thus using AF rather than IPPROTO_ could have been a way to bypass the need for standardization. -- 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
