From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 18 20:32:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA01605 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from whizzo.TransSys.COM (whizzo.TransSys.COM [144.202.42.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA01511 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.transsys.com (localhost.transsys.com [127.0.0.1]) by whizzo.TransSys.COM (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA00910; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706190331.XAA00910@whizzo.TransSys.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0delta 6/3/97 To: "Alexander V. Tischenko" cc: "David S. Miller" , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Eric.Schenk@dna.lth.se From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Re: RFCs and Urgent pointers References: In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:32:16 +0400." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:31:09 -0400 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, David S. Miller wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:50:13 +0400 (MSD) > > From: "Alexander V. Tischenko" > > > > Anybody thought of adding the RFC style Urgent pointers to the TCP, > > say, as TCP level socket option ? > > > > We've made this a sysctl() tunable under Linux, I don't think we > > considered the benefits of making it a socket option, that may in fact > > be a better approach. Comments? > > > I suppose it is better to make it an option, 'cause this way you can set > it on per-socket basis from your applications. TCP urgent data is how the socket out-of-band-data abstraction is realized. I don't understand what else you might "add" to TCP to do "Urgent Pointers". There ought to already be a option for "inline" out-of-band data, which I think is the default in most modern BSD-based TCPs. louie