Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
>> Another option, now that I think about it, though, is a TCP option
>> which contained the service name - one well-known port would be the
>> "demux port", and which actual application you connected to would
>> depend on the value in the TCP option.
> Like tcpmux, port 1, RFC 1078?
You know, as I was typing that, I was thinking "I'll bet someone has something
that does this, and I just don't know about it, and I'm going to look dumb as
toast"... Sigh... :-)
Which leaves us the obvious question: why aren't more people using TCPMux, if
it already exists?
Because it relies on data and reply is passed in-band. It means that the
application ends up thinking the connection is established even if it
would have failed.
Putting the info in an option is a better solution, since the SYN-ACK
can depend on whether the port resolution was successful.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf