From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758342AbYH2OGb (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:06:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757117AbYH2OGX (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:06:23 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:50067 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756813AbYH2OGX (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:06:23 -0400 To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Greg KH , bgmerrell@novell.com, hirofuchi@users.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, usbip-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: USBIP protocol From: Andi Kleen References: <20080829140224.GC1968@parisc-linux.org> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:06:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20080829140224.GC1968@parisc-linux.org> (Matthew Wilcox's message of "Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:02:24 -0600") Message-ID: <87ej47q5k8.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox writes: > I'm in the middle of implementing a userspace client for usbip and I > strongly feel that the protocol needs to be changed before it is merged. > > - I'm unconvinced that TCP is the correct protocol to be running this over. > I understand the reluctance to use UDP, but the protocol is fundamentally > packet-based. If TCP is used, the delimitation of packets within the > stream needs to be much more robust. If you want reliable transport with record boundaries an alternative would be also SCTP. Main drawback is that firewalls often don't support it though (but presumably that wouldn't be a big issue for this) -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com