On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 itojun@iijlab.net wrote:

> >>	SCTP pcb has multiple pair of addresses, therefore inpcb cannot support
> >>	it.  i guess i made it clear in the previous message.  could you tell
> >>	me how you would support SCTP with your approach?
> >
> >I have not seen your stcp code, and its been some while since I saw
> >Randy et al.'s. But I would start (as I said) by having a *common
> >prefix* in the pcb's of all transport layers that require IPsec; and
> >move common header fields and the IPsec-relevant state variables into
> >that common header.
> >
> >The SCTP addresses themselves can be obtained from the packet.
> >
> >Again, what I proposed Friday (and since) is in fact, a common prefix.
> >Objections to using the  current struct inpcb as-is are a strawman.
>
> 	how can you associate sctp_pcb (which contains multiple pair of
> 	addresses) with multiple cached policies for each pairs?  i guess
> 	you can't.

I'll be honest, I have more to learn about SCTP. So how do you handle the
one-to-many problem now? If you have one inpcb but multiple sockets, you
still have one-to-many, so I don't see how the cached policies are such a
new issue?

Tale care,

Bill