[erlang-questions] SCTP Accept

[Tristan Sloughter]

doh, I think you are right! I wonder if that is basically what sctp
accept does, instead of requiring the extra step?

--
Tristan Sloughter
t@REDACTED
 
 
 
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016, at 09:55 AM, Ferenc Holzhauser wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> If I understand the question correctly, you could use peeloff in SCTP for spawning processes for different connections.
>  
> Regards,
> Ferenc
>  
> On 25 January 2016 at 16:47, Tristan Sloughter <t@REDACTED> wrote:
>> I'm basically reviving this old thread:
>> http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2009-September/046558.html
>>  
>> 
As far as I can tell an 'acccept' is necessary. It exists at the lower
>> 
level to provide a socket for communicating with the client that made
>> 
the association. Without this you can't spawn a process per client on
>> 
the server side, unless I'm missing something?
>>  
>> 
Has this simply not mattered because sctp is not supported in most cloud
>> 
networks and such, so it isn't used? Meaning it makes sense for me to
>> 
add an accept interface? Or is it actually not needed somehow and
>> 
associations can be handled in a similar way to what I described without
>> 
a new socket?
>> 
>> 
--
>> 
  Tristan Sloughter
>> t@REDACTED
>> 
_______________________________________________
>> 
erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20160125/148f14cc/attachment.htm>