svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet

[Robert Watson]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Adrian Chadd wrote:

> 2009/1/10 Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org>:
>
>> I think Julian's analysis, that this is more of an inet option than a 
>> socket-layer option, seems more appropriate to me, the benefits of 
>> portability in adopting the API used by OpenBSD/BSDI/etc seem more 
>> compelling.  We should make sure that, if we move to the socket option used 
>> on those systems, we block setting it on non-supporting protocols, or 
>> confusion will result.  In particular, Adrian's change only modified IPv4, 
>> not IPv6, so until it's implemented on IPv6 it shouldn't be possible to set 
>> the option.
>
> I'm happy to (eventually) also implement the BSDI API once I actually spend 
> time looking at what the difference in behaviours are. If we're lucky, the 
> only difference is where the socket option hooks in and the actual network 
> behaviour is the same.
>
> (Meanwhile, I think I have to go off and implement this particular behaviour 
> in Squid, and see if the OpenBSD support indeed does function as 
> advertised.)

If the API turns out to be effectly semantically the same, or better, then I 
think the suggestion is to entirely replace, rather than supplement, the 
socket option you just added with it.  There's no point in having pointlessly 
divergent APIs where it can be avoided.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge