Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:17:10 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using connect() on UDP RPC client sockets. Message-ID: <20010522001710.A91710@tp.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <200105211850.OAA09062@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu on Mon, May 21, 2001 at 02:50:13PM -0400 References: <200105202256.aa30752@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> <20010520184033.A83645@tp.databus.com> <200105211850.OAA09062@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well there's SCTP ... I have a general comment/question: Is there a policy on when it is appropriate to create a FreeBSD-only feature? I can certainly see it when there is a big win to be had. A feature like this, though, if not likely to become part of Posix/Single-Unix or whatever the term is these days, is of questionable value. Can anyone realistically see bind or ntpd being modified to take advantage of it when running on FreeBSD? Use of such a feature buried in FreeBSD's own rpc code is different, I suppose. Barney Wolff On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Sun, 20 May 2001 18:40:33 -0400, Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> said: > > > Where an RFC mandates that the reply source address must be the same > > as the request dest addr > > This is true for *any* protocol built over IP, regardless of what the > individual protocol specifications say. See RFC 1122 sections > 3.3.4.2, 4.1.3.5, and 4.2.3.7. (It actually says ``SHOULD'' in the > first two sections, which translates as ``you'd better have a damn > good reason not to''.) 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?20010522001710.A91710>