[erlang-questions] SCTP Accept

[Ferenc Holzhauser]

Probably that's the reason why I didn't use accept then :-)
As I mentioned, it's been a while...

Regards,
Ferenc

On 25 January 2016 at 17:17, Tristan Sloughter <t@REDACTED> wrote:

> Do you mean in Erlang? There is no accept in gen_sctp and prim_inet accept
> does not accept an SCTP socket.
>
> In C I see accept and peeloff both exist. But what I've done for Erlang
> after you pointed out peeloff is the same as you, if #sctp_assoc_change{}
> is the message received, peeloff a new 1-1 socket for it.
>
> --
> Tristan Sloughter
> t@REDACTED
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Ferenc Holzhauser wrote:
>
>
> It's been a while, but I think I just used : open, listen, wait for the
> connection SCTP message then from there peeloff the association into a new
> socket which was then handed off to a new process. I don't think I used
> accept.
>
> Regards,
> Ferenc
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 16:58, Tristan Sloughter <t@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>
> 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/20160125/96925792/attachment.htm>