From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 18 06:39:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA16701 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 06:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thorin.hway.ru (flash@thorin.hway.ru [194.87.58.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA16477 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 06:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (flash@localhost) by thorin.hway.ru (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA20626; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:32:16 +0400 (MSD) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:32:16 +0400 (MSD) From: "Alexander V. Tischenko" To: "David S. Miller" cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Eric.Schenk@dna.lth.se Subject: Re: RFCs and Urgent pointers In-Reply-To: <199706181313.JAA06467@jenolan.caipgeneral> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, David S. Miller wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:50:13 +0400 (MSD) > From: "Alexander V. Tischenko" > > Anybody thought of adding the RFC style Urgent pointers to the TCP, > say, as TCP level socket option ? > > We've made this a sysctl() tunable under Linux, I don't think we > considered the benefits of making it a socket option, that may in fact > be a better approach. Comments? > I suppose it is better to make it an option, 'cause this way you can set it on per-socket basis from your applications. Alexander V. Tischenko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Integrated Network Technologies | Tel: +7 095 978-47-37 7, Miusskaya sq., Moscow, 125047 Russia | Fax: +7 095 978-47-37 Internet: flash@hway.ru | NIC: AT55-RIPE