I think this is because any bugs that are found are usually communicated directly to us.
I think Randy has a better handle on how many people are using this stack. I'm quite sure it is stable enough to go in to -current.
While the SCTP API hasn't gone through last call, it's fairly stable and we have both "converted" many applications from TCP to SCTP using the sockets API, as well as had portability between the KAME SCTP stack and the linux stack for some test applications used at the last interop event (except for the standard sockets issues that one runs into even for TCP like no sin_length field in the sockaddr struct).
The same stack has also been ported to Mac OSX as a native kernel build as well as an loadable/unloadble NKE w/a minor kernel change.
I'm not aware of any KAME SNAP compilation failures w/and w/o SCTP. The major changes to our SCTP code when it gets committed into KAME has been that of code format/style.
What is the existing criteria for a measure of "stability"?
regards, --peter
SUZUKI Shinsuke wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:48 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED](Marco Molteni) said:
SCTP in KAME is complete, stable and fully supported. It is mainly developed by the SCTP RFC author, Randall Stewart.
KAME Project haven't received SCTP-related bug report so much, and I think it's due to a lack of testers, SCTP-API standard, and SCTP-ready applications. #Sometimes KAME SNAP compilation fails in SCTP and non-SCTP #application fails in compilation due to a change by SCTP. So it's #difficult to conclude that SCTP is already stable...
So I'm not still sure if SCTP in KAME is complete and stable enough to merge into -current. (If someone can contribute to this kind of evaluation, it's quite appreciated, of course!)
Thanks, ---- SUZUKI, Shinsuke @ KAME Project _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
