Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:07:00 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Matus Harvan <mharvan@inf.ethz.ch> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Subject: Re: TCP listenall Message-ID: <4722B964.5060701@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4722B6A3.6030606@FreeBSD.org> References: <20070909204148.GB18107@inf.ethz.ch> <20071026155206.GH1049@styx.ethz.ch> <4722B6A3.6030606@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce M. Simpson wrote: > > The relay port idea I pointed out in my message about udp catchall > would be especially applicable here -- we may not always want > catchalls for the entire 16-bit tcp port space. > ... > How will inp_tlistenall appear in netstat output? Perhaps assigning a > LISTEN_ALL state would be helpful for an administrator to clearly see > that a listenall socket is active? Perhaps checking for TCP_LISTENALL > set on an unbound socket in tcp_usr_listen() when listen() is called > is the way to go instead of, or in addition to, using inp_tlistenall? P.S. This is probably how you get INET6 support for little cost. Hint hint. ;-) BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4722B964.5060701>