From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 21 18:58:59 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AD716A4CE; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:58:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.vicor-nb.com (bigwoop.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F26343D39; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:58:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from elischer.org (julian.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.97]) by mail.vicor-nb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126667A424; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <417806F2.50607@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:58:58 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030516 X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Oppermann References: <20041021173145.1AE6477A9D0@guns.icir.org> <4177F875.2822A51E@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4177F875.2822A51E@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org cc: mallman@icir.org Subject: Re: Removing T/TCP and replacing it with something simpler X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:58:59 -0000 Andre Oppermann wrote: >Mark Allman wrote: > > >>>Thus after the removal of T/TCP for the reasons above I want to provide >>>a work-alike replacement for T/TCP's functionality: >>> >>> >>I haven't fully digested this yet. But, I'll voice my distaste for >>implementing things that just seem to "Make Sense". That's a model that >>has been used and is used by other operating systems and those of us who >>watch packets can attest that things that "Make Sense" often don't and >>likely would have benefitted by a bit more thought and a bit more >>vetting. I would be happier if something like this were vetted out a >>bit more (written up, digested by folks, etc.) before it went into >>anything but someone's experimental kernel. Just my two cents. >> >> > >Sure. To make you sleep better it will be disabled by default (like >T/TCP) and possibly even not compliled in by default (#ifdef'd). If >enabled and compiled in it does not automatically enable itself for all >and everything. The application has to enable it on the socket as well. > >A writeup will follow once I get there. I made this request before I >start working on it to prevent to waste my time on it if people wanted >to religiously stick to T/TCP. > > couldn't you do it with a spoofing interface? i.e. tcp sessions going through get turned into something that loks like ttcp on the wire and converted back at teh other end?