- Community service -- do not pass Go ... - 8 Updates
- How to use extern C with _Bool - 1 Update
- Rust has the same memory problem as C and C++ - 3 Updates
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Apr 23 10:02PM -0700 > Brian > Ebenezer Enterprises > http://webEbenezer.net With more people needing quality, free services, I'm looking for a router that has support for SCTP in terms of port forwarding. I read on Stackoverflow that the percentage of routers with SCTP support was very low as of 2013. Thanks in advance for advice on this. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Apr 24 09:21AM +0200 > that the percentage of routers with SCTP support was > very low as of 2013. Thanks in advance for advice > on this. SCTP is like IPv6 - it has many clear advantages over its predecessors, and has been predicted to replace them for nearly 10 years, but is still seen almost nowhere. Just as IPv6 is only found either on specialised or highly technical local networks, or tunnelled over IPv4 for wider networking, SCTP is only found on similar local networks or tunnelled over UDP. There are almost no off-the-shelf routers that handle SCTP explicitly and are sold at a sane price tag. (Of course trunk routers just pass on the IP traffic without concerning themselves with the protocol inside.) Windows has no native SCTP support. Thus there are virtually no applications that support it. Thus there is no incentive for MS to support it in Windows, and no incentive for makers of small routers to support it. Rinse and repeat, going around the circles as much as you want. Chickens and eggs. The trouble is, while SCTP has many clear advantages over TCP/IP and UDP, and could replace both of them, in almost all use-cases you can make either TCP/IP or UDP work well enough. Patching, encapsulating, workarounds are all lower cost and fewer changes than switching over to something better. So while you are right to think that SCTP is a superior technological choice, you can expect that none of your customers will have any interest or ability to use it. Having said that, if you still want a router that is SCTP aware, I think the best bet is to put one together yourself. My primary suggestions here are pfSense running on an x86 box (since you like BSD), or OpenWRT running on practically anything from a cheapo home wireless router to a powerful rack server. They are both straightforward to install in most cases. |
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Apr 24 10:51AM On Fri, 2020-04-24, David Brown wrote: > On 24/04/2020 07:02, woodbrian77@gmail.com wrote: ... >> very low as of 2013. Thanks in advance for advice >> on this. > SCTP is like IPv6 IPv6 is much more obviously a good idea IMO. We probably shouldn't start a debate about it here though, and I agree with your point that relying on either is a bad idea. > seen almost nowhere. Just as IPv6 is only found either on specialised > or highly technical local networks, or tunnelled over IPv4 for wider > networking, Lots of organizations, from Google and Facebook to Debian, are available over IPv6; the problem is with the ISPs. (The end result is the same, though -- no IPv6 for most people.) /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Apr 24 10:53AM > IPv6 is much more obviously a good idea IMO. We probably shouldn't > start a debate about it here though, and I agree with your point that > relying on either is a bad idea. SCTP is also ok. IPv6 much more usefull though... > Lots of organizations, from Google and Facebook to Debian, are > available over IPv6; the problem is with the ISPs. (The end result > is the same, though -- no IPv6 for most people.) Yep, I think this is because they charge premium price for ipv4 addresses... -- current job title: senior software engineer skills: c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell... press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala |
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Apr 24 09:30AM -0700 On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2:21:23 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: > So while you are right to think that SCTP is a superior technological > choice, you can expect that none of your customers will have any > interest or ability to use it. I'm not sure what you mean about unable to use it. Linux and FreeBSD support SCTP. I don't need Windows support. |
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Apr 24 09:46AM -0700 On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:52:08 AM UTC-5, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > IPv6 is much more obviously a good idea IMO. We probably shouldn't > start a debate about it here though, and I agree with your point that > relying on either is a bad idea. I look forward to your posts here but can't agree this time. SCTP good. IPv6 bad. |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Apr 24 08:01PM +0200 >> interest or ability to use it. > I'm not sure what you mean about unable to use it. Linux > and FreeBSD support SCTP. I don't need Windows support. None of them will be able to connect to your system using SCTP, because the protocol will not be tracked through the NAT routers that they (almost invariably) will be using. If you find I am wrong in this, great. I know a good deal about networking, but not everything, and I haven't had cause to try SCTP. You would probably get better more useful help from a newsgroup aimed at Linux or BSD networking (like comp.os.linux.networking), rather than a C++ group where the post is off-topic. |
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Apr 24 11:34AM -0700 On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 1:01:13 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: > You would probably get better more useful help from a newsgroup aimed at > Linux or BSD networking (like comp.os.linux.networking), rather than a > C++ group where the post is off-topic. Thanks for the clarification. This article https://www.networkworld.com/article/2222277/what-about-stream-control-transmission-protocol--sctp--.html Says: "Operating systems, applications, and network equipment all needed to be upgraded to support IPv6 to enable it to work. SCTP only requires applications and operating system support, but that is still a daunting task." I'm hoping the part about "SCTP only requires applications and operating system support" is true, but am not sure. |
Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: Apr 24 02:07PM -0300 On 23/4/20 10:54, David Brown wrote: > (I know of a couple of C compilers where the size of "int" can be > changed from the command line, but these won't be of concern to most > people.) I was reading something related today... "LLVM Clang compiler adds support for custom width integers" https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/24/llvm_project_adds_support_for/ -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Apr 24 06:13AM >> quickly porting this from C over to C++, and it slipped my mind. ;^o > I forgot <cmath> as well. Missed it when everything compiled right up > with just <complex>. double damn! ;^o While you are at it, maybe change the calloc() to a std::vector? Much simpler, and shouldn't have much of an impact on performance. |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: Apr 24 06:37AM -0700 >> There is no such language in existence > in practice something like 99% of C is valid C++ as-is, without > modification. It may be that 99% of C constructs are valid C++ as is. Certainly it is not the case that 99% of C programs are valid C++ programs. That number is closer to 0%. |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: Apr 24 06:40AM -0700 > But C and C++ are very related languages, so there IS a language family > that can be described as C/C++, and there is a common core that is > common between the two languages. [...] Already too small to be practicable in any serious project, and getting smaller by the hour. |
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment