From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi>
Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, gurtov@cs.helsinki.fi,
netdev@oss.sgi.com, infrahip@hiit.fi
Subject: Re: [Infrahip] [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:20:02 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050322092002.486fdf1c.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0503221531020.19531@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi>
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:08:31 +0200 (EET)
Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi> wrote:
> Yes, MIP6 and IKE signalling is handled in the userspace, but
> the same is not true for SCTP (lksctp).
SCTP is a network protocol used for data transfer.
HIP is a signalling mechanism used to setup configuration.
> engineering practise is to put everything in the userspace, unless there
> is good reason for putting it in to the kernelspace.
>
> We don't currently have concrete measurements (comparing userspace and
> kernelspace approaches) to justify our kernel oriented approach, so we
> will have to get back to you later with some figures. If the results show
> that an userspace implementation is superior to a kernel based approach in
> terms of security or performance, we may have rewrite the code to the
> userspace. In the mean time, do you happen to know any good references
> where any userspace network protocol implementation has been compared and
> measured against a kernelspace implementation? It would be a good starting
> point for us.
>
> I would like to mention that lksctp was implemented in the 2.6 kernel
> because of better performance and tighter integration to the socket API.
> We are dealing with similar issues with HIPL but seems like we need to
> justify the reasons by analyzing and measuring. In addition, security
> issues (DoS protection, user supplied public keys, etc) are taken pretty
> seriously in HIP and may benefit from a kernel oriented approach.
>
> --
> Miika Komu miika@iki.fi http://www.iki.fi/miika/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-22 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-15 8:13 [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol Andrei Gurtov
2005-03-15 8:36 ` Pekka Savola
2005-03-15 9:04 ` [Infrahip] " Miika Komu
2005-03-15 12:56 ` Miika Komu
2005-03-20 16:08 ` [Infrahip] " Miika Komu
2005-03-20 17:42 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
2005-03-21 4:03 ` David S. Miller
2005-03-22 14:08 ` Miika Komu
2005-03-22 17:20 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2005-03-22 17:57 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050322092002.486fdf1c.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gurtov@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=infrahip@hiit.fi \
--cc=miika@iki.fi \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.