Removing T/TCP and replacing it with something simpler
randall at stewart.chicago.il.us
Sat Oct 23 06:24:12 PDT 2004
Mark Allman wrote:
>>Sure. To make you sleep better it will be disabled by default (like
>>T/TCP) and possibly even not compliled in by default (#ifdef'd).
> Part of your argument against T/TCP. :-)
>>A writeup will follow once I get there. I made this request before I
>>start working on it to prevent to waste my time on it if people wanted
>>to religiously stick to T/TCP.
> I think moving on from T/TCP is fine, don't get me wrong. And, I am all
> for seeing new schemes that buy us some of the things T/TCP was designed
> for. I am just not enthusiastic about dumping things into the kernel
> without some review and thought (by more than one person; and, that is
> not a knock on you --- if I had a nickel for every half-baked thing I'd
> implemented somewhere .... basically, it's good to get different
> Doing this in a systematic way may have benefits beyond FreeBSD, as
> well, of course.
I would rather have Andre work with me to get any other
rinkles out of SCTP that he deems are there... and get the
KAME-SCTP stack ported directly in to FreeBSD.. this IMO ... would
make more sense... Get something that is pretty well baked (IMO at
least) and work to get it "productionized" (even though I don't
feel it needs much work in this vein)...
803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222(cell)
More information about the freebsd-arch