Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

[Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>]

On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 18:02 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Instead of hacking the nice and working TCP we have now you should
> > move on to greener grass and use SCTP instead.  It does what you
> > want, at least in the specification.  I don't know how many implementors
> > have managed to code it properly.
> Please point me to where I can get a version of SSH that uses SCTP instead
> of TCP and talks to the existing SSHD services using TCP with flow
> survivability. If the TCP library changes underneath SSH and provides this
> capability, it will get deployed.  If we need to completely rewrite all the
> applications to support TCP and SCTP in some sort of split-brained idea of
> how the world should work, then, adoption is less likely.

It is called *OPEN*ssh in most cases, use the code ;)

But as most people do not care about the openess of source there is an
easier method (yup I also asked about this before ;):

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-net/msg09933.html

Quoting Sridhar Samudrala:
8<-----------------------
I don't see any need to hijack listen() or connect() calls to make
an existing TCP application to use SCTP. This can be done by trapping
the socket() call and replacing the protocol with IPPROTO_SCTP.
The lksctp-tools package does include a utility called 'withsctp' that
can used with most of the existing TCP applications to make them
use SCTP.

You can find it as part of the lksctp-tools-1.0.0-1.i386.rpm at
   http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26529
---------------------->8

Oh and it works just fine, props to the SCTP implementors!

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part