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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).