From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Aug 14 15:36:23 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id PAA05382
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:36:23 -0700
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA05368
          for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:35:51 -0700
Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <30744>; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:35:51 +0100
Date: 	Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com>
To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de>
cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>, current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ioctl(SIOCAIFADDR): File exists
In-Reply-To: <199508141656.SAA13030@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950814153438.16944K-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 14 Aug 1995, J Wunsch wrote:

> > Absolutely.  RFC 1323 and RFC 1644 are completely transparent to any
> > correctly-operating TCP implementation that doesn't support them.
> > (Hell, they even work against SunOS and Ultrix!)
> > 
> > > Seems that it didn't work. :-(
> > 
> > It seems highly unlikely that this is the cause.
> 
> Latest news is that it's a problem of the header compression.

  Header compression?  Doesn't that mean that it is SLIP or PPP problem 
then and not a TCP problem at all?

Tom