Re: Streams TCP/IP


Guy Harris (gorodish!guy@sun.com)
28 Jul 87 18:59:11 GMT


I won't bother replying to the whiny little question at the end, but
I will point out a couple of things:

> I only meant that STREAMS is what you get with the current versions from
> ATT, without the cost of re-porting to each new AT&T release, you
> don't get sockets or anything else. A vendor that must rely on ATT
> to provide a base, a strategy based on sockets does not seem appropriate
> in the long term.

That depends on several things. First, it depends on whether the
vendor wants to continue to depend on AT&T to provide a base, especially
given the S5R3 licensing agreement. Second, it depends on whether
they want to re-port the rest of what they've done to S5R3.

Yes, STREAMS comes "for free" with S5R3. This is not necessarily
sufficient to make it the best way to go. Unisoft, I believe, offers
a socket implementation as part of their S5 ports.

> So what? Warts can be removed, if deemed necessary.

It is not necessarily that easy. The TLI uses the state information
that is kept in userland; it might have to be redesigned to remove
this particular wart.

It is not a given that the TLI will be the interface used for future
protocol implementations; a socket-based ISO implementation (which
may require changes to the socket interface) or some completely
different C-language binding of network operations may end up being
dominant.

> My response to a question someone asked was not meant to support or
> criticize STREAMS or the Socket implementation in 4.x based systems.

My response wasn't meant to do that either; it was meant to point out
the other side of various issues.
        Guy Harris
        {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
        guy@sun.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:48 GMT