Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 15:21:41 -0400
From: gnn@freebsd.org
To: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@freebsd.org>
Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RFC {get,set}socktopt SO_DONTFRAGMENT
Message-ID: <m2fyjhy9bu.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060509231911.54375.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here>
References: <20060505033749.76815.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <20060505192943.Q17611@fledge.watson.org> <20060509231911.54375.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Tue, 9 May 2006 20:18:48 -0300, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote: > I was thinking of a blanket option that would cover anything > a socket could have instead of having options inside "every" single > place. > > Of couse, IP_DONTFRAG applies very well in most situations. > However, I don't think that SO_DONTFRAGMENT would be a replacement > but rather a more "generic" option. > > Well, I could just be missing something and saying something > naive. :) So I apologize if I am missing something obvious. > No apology necessary. I think that a generic option would be too misleading. Those who want to say "Don't Fragment" usually are specialists and we dont' want people accidentally pessimizing their applications by setting this when they don't mean to. Best, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2fyjhy9bu.wl%gnn>