[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [amqp-bindmap] [SCTP Binding]
The "best" I can find so far is buried in the Linux man pages and c headers... ! Frankly, Java's sctp impl isn't very good (along with the rest of nio). We'll be going directly to bsd sockets and sysctl. Raphael Cohn Chief Architect raphael.cohn@StormMQ.com StormMQ Limited UK Office: Gateshead int'l Business Centre, Mulgrave Terrace, Gateshead, NE8 1AN, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 845 3712 567 Registered office: 16 Anchor Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 0JY, United Kingdom StormMQ Limited is Registered in England and Wales under Company Number 07175657 StormMQ.com On 30 Jan 2013, at 18:25, "Godfrey, Robert X" <robert.godfrey@jpmorgan.com> wrote: > Is there any doc on this feature... I'd not come across it before. > > Incidentally I don't see an obvious way to access it using the Java API for SCTP > > -- Rob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjay Aiyagari [mailto:saiyagari@vmware.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:58 PM > To: Godfrey, Robert X > Cc: amqp-bindmap@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [amqp-bindmap] [SCTP Binding] > > Connection initiation - SCTP has the Adaptation Layer Indicator that is part of the startup sequence and can identify application layer version without taking up kernel memory for a full connection. This avoids "wrong version" connections early. > -- > Sanjay > > On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:22 AM, "Mr. Rob Godfrey" <robert.godfrey@jpmorgan.com> wrote: > >> So I guess my open questions on the SCTP Binding are >> >> 1) How do we mark initiation of the AMQP communication >> >> In TCP we use a header AMQPxxxx ... which TCP guarantees will arrive before any subsequent frames. In SCTP am I correct in believing this guarantee would only hold true if all communication was on the same SCTP stream. >> >> The open frame similarly is defined as having to be sent before any other AMQP traffic on the connection. >> >> 2) Framing. I believe that we can do away with the need for AMQP Framing when using SCTP. The SCTP message carries all information that is currently held in an AMQP frame with the exception of the unused extended header. Are others comfortable with this approach. >> >> 3) Closing a connection. Similar issues to opening in that we don't have the same total ordering guarantees. In the case of a clean shutdown this is probably not a significant issue (all AMQP Sessions will have been "end"ed prior to the close being issued... the peer can take note of the close, and wait until all open sessions are ended... or timeout after some waiting period). (There may be a vanishingly small corner case where a sender asyncronously begins, operates on, and ends a session... and this entire sequenec is "overtaken" by the close). >> >> 4) Security... will we continue to use SASL... if so how does the layering work. We also need to define the TLS equivalent layer. >> >> What other areas have I ommitted? >> >> -- Rob > This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and > conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of > securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses, > confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers, > available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]