RFC {get,set}socktopt SO_DONTFRAGMENT

[Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira]

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 07:30:14PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> Delivered-To: lioux-freebsd at localhost
> Delivered-To: lioux at freebsd.org
> X-Original-To: freebsd-arch at FreeBSD.org
> Delivered-To: freebsd-arch at FreeBSD.org
> Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:30:37 +0100 (BST)
> From: Robert Watson <rwatson at FreeBSD.org>
> X-X-Sender: robert at fledge.watson.org
> To: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux at FreeBSD.org>
> In-Reply-To: <20060505033749.76815.qmail at exxodus.fedaykin.here>
> Cc: freebsd-arch at FreeBSD.org
> Subject: Re: RFC {get,set}socktopt SO_DONTFRAGMENT
> X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch at freebsd.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> Precedence: list
> Errors-To: owner-freebsd-arch at freebsd.org
> 
> On Fri, 5 May 2006, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> 
> >	I would like to propose a new socket option: SO_DONTFRAGMENT on the 
> >lines of IP_DONTFRAG.
> 
> I'm confused.  Why not just use the IP_DONTFRAG socket option?  I must be 
> missing something pretty basic here. :-)

	I was thinking of a blanket option that would cover anything
a socket could have instead of having options inside "every" single
place.

	Of couse, IP_DONTFRAG applies very well in most situations.
However, I don't think that SO_DONTFRAGMENT would be a replacement
but rather a more "generic" option.

	Well, I could just be missing something and saying something
naive. :) So I apologize if I am missing something obvious.

	Regards,

-- 
Mario S F Ferreira - DF - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature."
feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature