From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 02:59:39 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 9A5DA16A4CE; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:59:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs.huji.ac.il (cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B42A43D1D; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:59:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32] ident=danny) by cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1AqVc1-000JMv-Ay; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:59:29 +0200 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Andre Oppermann In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:46:39 +0100 . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:59:27 +0200 From: Danny Braniss Message-Id: cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TTCP/RFC1644 problem 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:59:39 -0000 thanks for insight! i guess it's time to change horses :-( i was planning to use it for an application that is udp, oh well, there goes another idea down the drain. danny > Danny Braniss wrote: > > > > > I have been the last one fuzz around in the TTCP code areas. However > > > there could be problems that were lurking there before in other code > > > parts (syncache maybe). TTCP isn't used in production by anyone (AFAIK) > > > and only minimally tested. > > ahh, that's one realy good piece of info so far. > > this is one more step away from 'don't judge a book by it's cover' ... > > reading the specs of ttcp, it seemed promising, but i guess it becomes > > insignificat when the world uses ssl:-) > > There are who like it and there are people who hate it. > > > > What FreeBSD version are you using? > > > > 4.8, 4.9 and current. > > In 4.8 and 4.9 is the legacy code. When it doesn't work between a > 4.x client and server then the TTCP as such is broken. My changes > (tcp hostcache) are in 5.2 for the first time. Before it it's the > legacy code as well. I hope I haven't broken TTCP more than it was > before. > > > and solaris(but i guess they don't do ttcp) and linux (not yet). > > Linux never will. They consider TTCP broken by design. Solaris > I dont know. > > The problem is that TTCP will never make it mainstream or even > little side stream. FreeBSD is the only BSD implementing it. > Removing it would make maintainance of the tcp code a bit easier. > Yet there are a couple of our FreeBSD folks emotionally attached > to it (but they do not actively or even passively maintain it). > > -- > Andre