Re: [tcpm] Re: [dccp] Re: DCCP and draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt

[Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>]

At 11:20 17/07/2004 -0700, Eddie Kohler wrote:

> > In other words, it would be possible to provide an API (e.g., a socket 
> > option that could be set) which would abort the connection if it receives 
> > a soft error in SYN-SENT/RECEIVED states.
>
> This is trivial at the application level: simply turn off the "soft errors 
> are hard" API once connect() has completed.  I think embedding 
> SYN-SENT/RECEIVED knowledge in any kernel/user API is a bad idea.

IMHO, requiring an application programmer more knowledge about networking 
and protocol specifics (soft and hard errors, etc.) is not a good idea.

I'd either ease his life, and provide him with a more abstract, 
higher-level API, or would fix things without bothering him.


> > Another alternative is to make the change by default, but provide the
> > identical API (e.g., a socket option) which would prevent the address
> > cycling --
> This assumes that all address cycling will happen below the application, 
> which is doubtful.

Not sure what you mean. As far as I can understand, Pekka is just 
discussing whether it'd be best for the "change" to kick in by default, or not.

He's still thinking about address-cycling being performed by the application.

Of course, if you provided application programmers with a higher-level API, 
all the soft errors and address cycling issues could be handled bellow the 
application.


--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org