From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 21 19:03:12 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 A4F0816A4CE for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:03:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D724543D69 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:03:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 79741 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2004 19:01:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 21 Oct 2004 19:01:47 -0000 Message-ID: <417807F5.AE550647@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:03:17 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <4177C8AD.6060706@freebsd.org> <20041021185137.GA37500@dragon.nuxi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 19:03:12 -0000 David O'Brien wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 04:33:17PM +0200, Andre Oppermann 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: > .. > > This different implementation will be disabled by default and clearly > > marked EXPERIMENTAL in a protocol sense. It will allow the only known > > user of T/TCP to keep the same functionality with a very small change > > to his application. It allows interesting new uses primarily in > > Intranet environment where many short connections are openend in rapid > > succession (LDAP servers, SQL servers, etc.). The modifications to > > those programs to use the new option is minimal and requires only the > > setting of the socket option, one setsockopt() call. > > I'm not so happy with a FreeBSD-only "proprietary" thing. Is there any > proposed RFC work that provides the qualities you want? The advantage > with T/TCP is that there was a published standard. Not for TCP. There are plenty of proposed or approved replacements for TCP though. Implementing or importing them is a lot harder and applications wanting to use it have to be extensively modified. The nice thing of my proposed replacement is its simplicity. Submitting an RFC draft for that is not hard and I'm going to do it based on the feedback I've got so far. I think we can enough drive behind this to make it an actual published RFC standard. Don't worry. I don't want to remove one intrusive piece of code just to replace it with another one. -- Andre