Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 16:21:33 -0500 From: Robert Sanders <rsanders@mindspring.com> To: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: -Vince- <vince@apollo.COSC.GOV>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: finger problem going from 2.1R to -current Message-ID: <199601152121.QAA29362@interbev.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <9601152109.AA11052@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> References: <199601152017.PAA28876@interbev.mindspring.com> <Pine.BSF.3.91.960115125532.20064d-100000@apollo.COSC.GOV>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 15 Jan 1996 16:09:53 -0500, "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> said: >> Maybe this can be committed to the tree... > No. (There is another, completely different, kernel fix.) Yeah, the T/TCP changes just recently got put into the tree. I guess the importance of T/TCP for this is that it can save, what, one round trip per finger connection? What confuses me is that, though I haven't read rfc1644 or the kernel source, I thought that T/TCP would properly cope with hosts that didn't want to cooperate. Otherwise, it seems that the default settings for both rfc* sysctl options should be off. TCP extensions just seem to cause trouble for the Average Joe. -- Robert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601152121.QAA29362>