Re: [dccp] Re: dccp_service in sockaddr_dccp{}

[Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida at csl.sony.co.jp>]

Hmm, I'm afraid that I disagree with sockaddr_dccp or sockaddr_in_dccp.
I think most of network programmers get used to using setsockopt(), so
I believe there would not be a big confusion in specifying service code with
setsockopt() rather than using new sockaddr type with bind().

Besides that, I don't know how many applications need to use the service code.
If using the service code is almost mandatory, new sockaddr type might be 
better. but I am not very sure about it.. 

Thanks,
--
Yoshifumi Nishida
nishida at csl.sony.co.jp


From: Eddie Kohler <kohler at cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: [dccp] Re: dccp_service in sockaddr_dccp{}
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:52:41 -0700
Message-ID: <43210709.7090808 at cs.ucla.edu>

 > I agree with Arnaldo et al. here.  The Service Code should be considered 
 > similar to a port.  It is best to specify it at bind() time, rather than 
 > separately.  The structure names may want some updating; sockaddr_in_dccp and 
 > sockaddr_in6_dccp, rather than sockaddr_dccp, for example.  The servicecode 
 > member should finish off the structure, so that sockaddr_in is a prefix of 
 > sockaddr_in_dccp.  And the code should be smart enough to supply a 0 service 
 > code if the sa_len corresponds to sockaddr_in instead of sockaddr_in_dccp.
 > 
 > Eddie
 > 
 > 
 > YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
 > > Hi, Arnaldo and folks,
 > > 
 > > In article <20050909011256.GC19109 at mandriva.com> (at Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:12:56 -0300), Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme at conectiva.com.br> says:
 > > 
 > > 
 > >>So we have to provide a way for applications to supply the service code,
 > >>it can be in sockaddr_dccp or in a setsockopt, so far we think its better
 > >>to have it in sockaddr_dccp.
 > > 
 > > 
 > > I do think sockopt is much better from the point of view of socket API.
 > > 
 > >  1. sockaddr_xxx{} and AF_xxx make pair.
 > >     e.g. sockaddr_in{} is used for AF_INET
 > >          sockaddr_in6{} is used for AF_INET6
 > >     Type of sockaddr shall be determined by the sa_family member
 > >     in sockaddr{} (POSIX).
 > > 
 > >  2. It is used only in DCCP-Request / DCCP-Response.
 > >     It does NOT identify the connection, it is NOT required.
 > > 
 > > I see strong reason we should avoid using new sockaddr{}
 > > in this case.  Or do I miss something?
 > > 
 >