On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:48 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The point is that address scoping should be used. When sending an >> INIT from 10.10.10.1 to 10.10.10.4 you should not list 192.168.1.1, >> since you are transmitting an address to a node which might or might >> not "be in the same scope". > > You might have two machines that are connected via the public > internet and also via a private network. > The two sets of cabling being completely separate giving you > resilience to network failure. > In which case you definitely don't want address scoping. Well, if you give the SCTP stack a hint when initiating the association, it can do the right thing. Calling sctp_connect(private_address) should work. It will list the public address without any problems. One can debate that sctp_connectx(private_address, public_address) will result in sending an INIT to the public_address listing the private one. However, calling sctp_connect(public_address) should not list the private_address. Best regards Michael > > While you may not want the SCTP traffic on the public network > itself, it could easily be routed separately. > > We have systems that 'sort of' designate one interface for SIP/RTP > and the other for 'management'. They might run M3UA/SCTP but no one > has really thought enough about which interface(s) the M3UA traffic > should use. > (Think of an ISUP/SIP gateway using M3UA for ISUP signalling.) > > David > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
