From owner-freebsd-net Thu Mar 8 14:32:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx.databus.com (p101-44.acedsl.com [160.79.101.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C155137B71A for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 14:32:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from barney@mx.databus.com) Received: (from barney@localhost) by mx.databus.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f28MVR880137; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:31:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from barney) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:31:27 -0500 From: Barney Wolff To: Wietse Venema Cc: Jonathan Graehl , Freebsd-Net Subject: Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake] Message-ID: <20010308173127.A80086@mx.databus.com> References: <20010308211823.EE154BC06D@spike.porcupine.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20010308211823.EE154BC06D@spike.porcupine.org>; from wietse@porcupine.org on Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 04:18:23PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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