From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 21 19:04:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFBAB16A4CE for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:04:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7C443D6B for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:04:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 79777 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2004 19:03:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 21 Oct 2004 19:03:31 -0000 Message-ID: <4178085D.898E981D@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:05:01 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: <20041021173145.1AE6477A9D0@guns.icir.org> <4177F875.2822A51E@freebsd.org> <417806F2.50607@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org cc: mallman@icir.org Subject: Re: Removing T/TCP and replacing it with something simpler X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:04:57 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > > Andre Oppermann wrote: > > >Mark Allman wrote: > > > > > >>>Thus after the removal of T/TCP for the reasons above I want to provide > >>>a work-alike replacement for T/TCP's functionality: > >>> > >>> > >>I haven't fully digested this yet. But, I'll voice my distaste for > >>implementing things that just seem to "Make Sense". That's a model that > >>has been used and is used by other operating systems and those of us who > >>watch packets can attest that things that "Make Sense" often don't and > >>likely would have benefitted by a bit more thought and a bit more > >>vetting. I would be happier if something like this were vetted out a > >>bit more (written up, digested by folks, etc.) before it went into > >>anything but someone's experimental kernel. Just my two cents. > >> > >> > > > >Sure. To make you sleep better it will be disabled by default (like > >T/TCP) and possibly even not compliled in by default (#ifdef'd). If > >enabled and compiled in it does not automatically enable itself for all > >and everything. The application has to enable it on the socket as well. > > > >A writeup will follow once I get there. I made this request before I > >start working on it to prevent to waste my time on it if people wanted > >to religiously stick to T/TCP. > > > > > > couldn't you do it with a spoofing interface? > i.e. tcp sessions going through get turned into something that loks like > ttcp > on the wire and converted back at teh other end? You failed the FUD test at the bottom of my email. -- Andre