From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jun 18 23:23:55 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA09592
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from thorin.hway.ru (root@thorin.hway.ru [194.87.58.130])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA09535
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from flash.intech.hway.ru (flash.intech.hway.ru [194.87.58.132])
	by thorin.hway.ru (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA28211;
	Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:20:22 +0400 (MSD)
Message-Id: <199706190620.KAA28211@thorin.hway.ru>
From: "Alexander V. Tischenko" <flash@intech.hway.ru>
To: "Alexander V. Tischenko" <flash@hway.ru>,
        "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>,
        <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, <Eric.Schenk@dna.lth.se>
Subject: Re: RFCs and Urgent pointers 
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:17:01 +0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> From: Louis A. Mamakos <louie@TransSys.COM>
> To: Alexander V. Tischenko <flash@hway.ru>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>;
freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Eric.Schenk@dna.lth.se
> Subject: Re: RFCs and Urgent pointers 
> Date: 19 èþíÿ 1997 ã. 7:31
> 
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, David S. Miller wrote:
> > 
> > >    Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:50:13 +0400 (MSD)
> > >    From: "Alexander V. Tischenko" <flash@hway.ru>
> > > 
> > >    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.
> 
> TCP urgent data is how the socket out-of-band-data abstraction is
realized.  I
> don't understand what else you might "add" to TCP to do "Urgent
Pointers". 
> There ought to already be a option for "inline" out-of-band data, which I
> think is the default in most modern BSD-based TCPs.
Just read RFC-1122, especially the part concerning TCP and Urgent Pointers
(4.2.2.4  Urgent Pointer), you will understand what i meant.
> 
> louie
> 
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Alexander V. Tischenko
Integrated Network Technologies
AT55-RIPE