[openib-general] RFC: move SDP from AF_INET_SDP to IPPROTO_SDP

[Talpey, Thomas]

We're encountering a similar situation in NFS/RDMA protocol
naming. The existing NFS client and server understand just
IPPROTO_UDP and IPPROTO_TCP.

One comment though, IP protocols are just 8 bits, 0-255. No
need to go to 65K.

I agree with Bryan though that it's not ours to say yes, it's netdev.
You should maybe stress the getaddrinfo() point more strongly, since
sharing of naming interfaces is highly desirable. SDP is all about
code compatibility, after all.

Tom.

At 01:15 PM 3/6/2006, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>Hi!
>Would it make sense to move SDP from using a separate address family to
>a separate protocol under AF_INET and AF_INET6?
>Something like IPPROTO_SDP?
>
>The main advantages are
>- IPv6 support will come more naturally and without further extending
>  to a yet another address family
>- We could use a protocol number > 64K (e.g. 70000) to avoid conflicting
>  with any IP based protocol.
>  There are much more free protocol numbers that free family numbers
>  (which only go up to 32 in linux for now).
>- I could reuse more code for creating connections from af_inet.c
>
>I also have a hunch this might make getaddrinfo work better on sdp but I'm not
>sure.
>
>Comments? Are there disadvantages to this approach that someone can see?
>
>-- 
>Michael S. Tsirkin
>Staff Engineer, Mellanox Technologies
>_______________________________________________
>openib-general mailing list
>openib-general at openib.org
>http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>
>To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general