Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:12:29 -0500 From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "Robert Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet Message-ID: <d763ac660901101012icb544b1v3ff940bd39f1abb6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901101026220.16794@fledge.watson.org> References: <200901091602.n09G2Jj1061164@svn.freebsd.org> <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu> <4967B6D9.90001@elischer.org> <4967C539.2060803@fsn.hu> <d763ac660901091411x40eb8084v134f0ab2189afddb@mail.gmail.com> <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901101026220.16794@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/1/10 Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>: > I think Julian's analysis, that this is more of an inet option than a > socket-layer option, seems more appropriate to me, the benefits of > portability in adopting the API used by OpenBSD/BSDI/etc seem more > compelling. We should make sure that, if we move to the socket option used > on those systems, we block setting it on non-supporting protocols, or > confusion will result. In particular, Adrian's change only modified IPv4, > not IPv6, so until it's implemented on IPv6 it shouldn't be possible to set > the option. I'm happy to (eventually) also implement the BSDI API once I actually spend time looking at what the difference in behaviours are. If we're lucky, the only difference is where the socket option hooks in and the actual network behaviour is the same. (Meanwhile, I think I have to go off and implement this particular behaviour in Squid, and see if the OpenBSD support indeed does function as advertised.) Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d763ac660901101012icb544b1v3ff940bd39f1abb6>