Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:31:27 -0500
From:      Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
To:        Wietse Venema <wietse@porcupine.org>
Cc:        Jonathan Graehl <jonathan@graehl.org>, Freebsd-Net <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]
Message-ID:  <20010308173127.A80086@mx.databus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010308211823.EE154BC06D@spike.porcupine.org>; from wietse@porcupine.org on Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 04:18:23PM -0500
References:  <NCBBLOALCKKINBNNEDDLKECLDMAA.jonathan@graehl.org> <20010308211823.EE154BC06D@spike.porcupine.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The graceful-close debate is a very old one, going back more than
twenty years.  X.25 and ISO-TP have non-graceful close - the close
can pass data in the network and cause it to be lost.  TCP is
defined as graceful-close.  In SVR4 TLI there are two types of
stream "sockets" with graceful or ugly close semantics.

Having said all that, I certainly agree with Wietse that the POLA
demands that a PF-LOCAL stream socket behave like TCP.

Barney Wolff

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010308173127.A80086>