Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:31:09 -0400 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 Message-ID: <199706190331.XAA00910@whizzo.TransSys.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:32:16 %2B0400." <Pine.BSI.3.96.SK.970618173034.20551A-100000@thorin.hway.ru> References: <Pine.BSI.3.96.SK.970618173034.20551A-100000@thorin.hway.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. louie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706190331.XAA00910>