Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:22:48 -0400 From: Randall Stewart <randall@stewart.chicago.il.us> To: mallman@icir.org Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing T/TCP and replacing it with something simpler Message-ID: <417A5B28.9080308@stewart.chicago.il.us> In-Reply-To: <20041021183238.00E8977A9D0@guns.icir.org> References: <20041021183238.00E8977A9D0@guns.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Allman wrote: >>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). > > > Part of your argument against T/TCP. :-) > > >>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. > > > I think moving on from T/TCP is fine, don't get me wrong. And, I am all > for seeing new schemes that buy us some of the things T/TCP was designed > for. I am just not enthusiastic about dumping things into the kernel > without some review and thought (by more than one person; and, that is > not a knock on you --- if I had a nickel for every half-baked thing I'd > implemented somewhere .... basically, it's good to get different > perspectives). > > Doing this in a systematic way may have benefits beyond FreeBSD, as > well, of course. I would rather have Andre work with me to get any other rinkles out of SCTP that he deems are there... and get the KAME-SCTP stack ported directly in to FreeBSD.. this IMO ... would make more sense... Get something that is pretty well baked (IMO at least) and work to get it "productionized" (even though I don't feel it needs much work in this vein)... R > > allman > > > -- Randall Stewart 803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222(cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?417A5B28.9080308>