Well, I agree that any exprerimental/not widely used protocol should be able to run over another more common protocol... for a number of reasons... One would be privilages... another would be recognition by firewalls, etc... I don't think that it would be tough to make code use either a raw or a UDP socket...
Brian Gray wrote: > > On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 12:08 PM, Jason House wrote: > > * How easy will support for SCTP be to work into the boost socket > > library? ... and how easy would the interface be to use? > > I looked at the docs on www.sctp.de and downloaded the source, and the > fatal flaw seems to be what I found in adaptation.c. It appears both > the routing socket and the sctp socket are built on raw IP. At least > on Linux, Darwin, and Windows NT/2000, you need root privileges to open > one of these. Thus, the daemon to handle the protocol will have to be > installed by and run as an administrator, and will therefore not be > usable by many clients who do not control the machine they use. > > I think a UDP-based implementation rather than a raw IP-based one would > do as well (with some wasted overhead) and not need admin privileges or > the cooperation of the operating system manufacturer to get installed. > Does anyone know if there is a UDP-based implementation? > > -- Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost