Removing T/TCP and replacing it with something simpler

[Andre Oppermann]

Julian Elischer wrote:
> 
> Andre Oppermann wrote:
> 
> >Mark Allman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Thus after the removal of T/TCP for the reasons above I want to provide
> >>>a work-alike replacement for T/TCP's functionality:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I haven't fully digested this yet.  But, I'll voice my distaste for
> >>implementing things that just seem to "Make Sense".  That's a model that
> >>has been used and is used by other operating systems and those of us who
> >>watch packets can attest that things that "Make Sense" often don't and
> >>likely would have benefitted by a bit more thought and a bit more
> >>vetting.  I would be happier if something like this were vetted out a
> >>bit more (written up, digested by folks, etc.)  before it went into
> >>anything but someone's experimental kernel.  Just my two cents.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >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).  If
> >enabled and compiled in it does not automatically enable itself for all
> >and everything.  The application has to enable it on the socket as well.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> 
> couldn't you do it with a spoofing interface?
> i.e. tcp sessions going through get turned into something that loks like
> ttcp
> on the wire and converted back at teh other end?

You failed the FUD test at the bottom of my email.

-- 
Andre