[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH,RFC] explicit connection confirmation

To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] explicit connection confirmation
From: bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:24:24 +0100
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20021107143002.GA23858@xxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx>, Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20021107093207.GA30666@xxxxxxx> <20021107112733.GA24283@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021107120956.GA10832@xxxxxxx> <20021107134918.GA28329@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021107143002.GA23858@xxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:30:02AM -0500, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:

> > I like having this ability - I dislike offering it to an unsuspecting
> > userspace.
> Userspace needs to turn on the option first, so your 'unsuspecting'
> does not apply.

Ah ok, I thought 'TCP_CONFIRM_CONNECT' was a TCP connection state like

> Again, if the app decides to turn on TCP_CONFIRM_CONNECT, then it's
> up to the app to deal with it properly.  There are very good reasons
> for not turning on TCP_CONFIRM_CONNECT by default, which is why it
> is not on by default, and why grafting a setsockopt onto every daemon
> there is out there is definitely not a good idea.

Exactly. Ok, cool. 



--          Versatile DNS Software & Services           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>