Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:05:24 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com>, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com> Subject: Re: /sys hierarchy Message-ID: <200007021805.OAA19556@whizzo.transsys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Jul 2000 10:44:23 PDT." <200007021744.KAA34752@john.baldwin.cx> References: <200007021744.KAA34752@john.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> On 02-Jul-00 Chris Costello wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 02, 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> ip/ - IPv4, IPv6, and IPsec bits from sys/netinet{,6}
> >> tcp/ - TCP " " " "
> >> udp/ - UDP " " " "
> >
> > Can this really be separated to such a degree? Since TCP and
> > UDP are inet protocols, do they _need_ to be separated this way?
>
> A directory listing of sys/netinet shows many in_* files, ip_* files,
> tcp_* files, and udp_* files. Note that TCP and UDP aren't explicity
> tied to IP, they are simply wrapped inside of an IP packet. In theory
> you can run TCP over IPX for example by using the same method of
> encapsulation. Of course, someone more familiar with the actual code
> in the tree might provide some better insight on the feasibility of
> splitting these up.
Well, in theory maybe, but note that the TCP checksum is computed
over a the TCP header and a pseudo header composed of the IPv4 transport
addresses. The layering of the protocols is a fine intellectual
notion, but don't confuse the layering with an efficient implementation.
louie
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007021805.OAA19556>