[jdev] Re: XMPP Ping method?

[Tobias Markmann]

I didn't know SCTP since you've mentioned it and have some questions:

   1. Is SCTP TCP compatible? When a server provides SCTP protocol on
   port 5222 for example normal TCP clients can still connect?
   2. Could both protocols run on one port?

TIA
Tobias


On 11/3/06, Michal 'vorner' Vaner <michal.vaner at kdemail.net> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 10:50:37AM -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
> > On Friday 03 November 2006 8:29 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > Norman Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > It might make sense in rfc3920bis to make a small note that SCTP can
> > > > be used as a 'drop in' replacement for TCP as long as both hosts
> > > > supports it.
> > >
> > > Will do. I still think it's not a great idea for us to be solving
> things
> > > at the XMPP layer that belong at the TCP/SCTP layer...
> >
> > It's bad enough that not all environments allow monitoring of TCP
> acks.  I
> > don't think SCTP is any better of a recommendation.  If we want
> something
> > universal, we have only plain TCP and UDP, really.  Of course, SCTP can
> be
> > layered over UDP, but that's a hefty requirement.
> >
> > Keep in mind that we have HTTP Binding, to assist platforms with very
> > restricted environments.  It's okay to be a purist, when it is
> reasonable,
> > but sometimes it is better to make exceptions like this.
> >
> > In my opinion, XMPP over SCTP over UDP is too much to ask for, when just
> an
> > element or two in XMPP over TCP will solve our problems.
> >
> However, I would like to see XMPP over SCTP. Simply because it's ability
> of multihoming (I may have written about it, I take laptop, start WiFi,
> unplug ethernet and want to be still connected).
>
> Besides, I think SCTP without UDP would be better anyway.
>
> Have a nice day
>
> --
>
> This message has optimized support for formating.
> Please choose green font and black background so it looks like it should.
>
> Michal "vorner" Vaner
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20061103/bdb0a52c/attachment-0002.htm>