If people want to work on discussing and standardising SCTP support then I can quickly create a discussion group somewhere and invite Randall et al into it.
I think its a worthwhile goal to sort out but I haven't had any luck doing it on public mailing lists. Send me a private email if you'd like to actively participate and I'll see about facilitating some discussion. Adrian On Mon, Jun 02, 2008, Pranav Desai wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The use case that I (and many others, I think) am interested in is where > > you're doing > > > > client <---TCP---> proxy <----SCTP---> proxy <---TCP---> origin server > > > > Hmm, thats interesting. I didn't think of it this way. I was looking > more towards the wireless networks (phones, PDAs, etc.). A custom > browser and SCTP may not be very acceptable or feasible at first on > these devices, because of lack of SCTP support in mobile platforms, > but with more and more mobile platforms moving towards linux, I think > an SCTP enabled webkit based browser might be feasible. Anyway, I was > thinking of a use case like this. > > client <--------- SCTP -----------> proxy <------------ TCP ------------> > OS > lossy/slow n/w fast backends > > Although, the use case you presented seems more feasible at this time. > > > Assuming that the TCP hops are short, and the SCTP is a long haul (e.g., > > from Australia to the US). > > > > > > On 03/06/2008, at 4:35 PM, Pranav Desai wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> I'm very interested in this, and would be willing to help with the spec > >> work side of things. It's also been discussed on the HTTP mailing list > >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Thanks you all for your responses. So as I expected its not as trivial as > >> changing the protocol type in squid. > >> > >> From the paper mentioned in this thread by Matt, it looks like we need to > >> have a mechanism to be able to handle multiple streams in parallel, without > >> which the advantage of using SCTP wouldn't be that much. I believe that > >> would be difficult in squid, due to the single process nature? What would > >> be > >> the right way to go about achieving this ? > >> > >> But, in general, it seems like a proxy would be a perfect place to use > >> something like SCTP, especially where the origin server may not have SCTP > >> support. It also seems like the client (browser) would be critical in how > >> efficiently they can use the key features of SCTP, multi-streaming. So a > >> combination of a custom browser (modified firefox) and squid could have > >> some > >> good advantage over TCP. > >> > >> -- Pranav > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 01/06/2008, at 12:50 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've spoken to some SCTP related people about this before. > >> The trouble is: > >> > >> * NOone's fleshed out how HTTP over SCTP should look; > >> * Noone's fleshed out how servers should choose HTTP over TCP vs SCTP. > >> > >> They're the much more pressing questions. > >> > >> > >> > >> Adrian > >> > >> On Sat, May 31, 2008, Pranav Desai wrote: > >> Hello All, > >> > >> What would you suggest should be the way to include SCTP support in Squid > >> 3.0 ? > >> > >> My assumption here is that SCTP would be useful for clients (which > >> support SCTP) connecting using slow/lossy wireless type networks. My > >> goal is to experiment and compare the performance against TCP for > >> wireless networks. > >> > >> So, I started with that and was easily able to add a config option for > >> client-side and change the corresponding function > >> clientHttpConnectionsOpen() to set appropriate protocol type and it > >> worked just fine. But that would make it an SCTP only proxy. > >> > >> We could also open up another listening port for SCTP, so that we can > >> have both SCTP and TCP simultaneously, where the origin server side > >> will always be TCP. > >> > >> But I feel that I am missing something here. So, I would really > >> appreciate any suggestions or comments you may have. > >> > >> Thanks for your time. > >> > >> -- Pranav > >> > >> -- > >> - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid > >> Support - > >> - $25/pm entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA - > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support - - $25/pm entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA -
