From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 15 23:39:23 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C71F616A4CE; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:39:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.vicor-nb.com (bigwoop.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AA4E643D1D; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:39:23 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from elischer.org (julian.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.97])
	by mail.vicor-nb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 861F67A41E; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <41993E2B.9060902@elischer.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:39:23 -0800
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030516
X-Accept-Language: en, hu
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>
References: <200411152334.iAFNY1oS003137@arch20m.dellroad.org>
In-Reply-To: <200411152334.iAFNY1oS003137@arch20m.dellroad.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: maxim@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: archie@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.ORG>
cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: julian@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: divert(4) socket isn't connection oriented
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:39:23 -0000



Archie Cobbs wrote:

>Julian Elischer wrote:
>  
>
>>If I did it again I think I'd suggest that divert not be a part of the 
>>INET family..
>>It was easiest tat that time to make it so..
>>Archie, do you remember why we decided this?
>>    
>>
>
>At the time, the goal was to minimize the size of the divert patch rather
>than maximizing elegance, because this was determined to give it a better
>chance of being committed... in hindsight we could have structured things
>more clearly.
>

yeah I remember now..