Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!
CS.UCL.AC.UK!zwang
From: zw...@CS.UCL.AC.UK.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: IP options implementation
Message-ID: <8706291422.AA06417@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 29-Jun-87 10:24:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8706291422.AA06417
Posted: Mon Jun 29 10:24:33 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Jun-87 04:33:35 EDT
Sender: dae...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 10
Hi,
Does anyone know of the implementation of IP options( source route, timestamp
and so on) under UNIX? In our dept, there is only one line: m_free(opt); for
the IP options.
Thanks in advance!
zw...@uk.ac.ucl.cs (UK)
zw...@cs.ucl.ac.uk (US)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!
UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU!karels%okeeffe
From: karels%okee...@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Karels)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IP options implementation
Message-ID: <8706291815.AA06092@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 29-Jun-87 14:15:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: okeeffe.8706291815.AA06092
Posted: Mon Jun 29 14:15:51 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jul-87 00:58:43 EDT
Sender: dae...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 3
4.3BSD implements most of the IP options (except security); 4.2 BSD did not.
Mike
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!
gswd-vms.Gould.COM!tucker%mycroft
From: tucker%mycr...@gswd-vms.Gould.COM (Tim Tucker)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IP options implementation
Message-ID: <8706301311.AA01944@gswd-vms.Gould.COM>
Date: Tue, 30-Jun-87 09:10:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: gswd-vms.8706301311.AA01944
Posted: Tue Jun 30 09:10:02 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 17:20:00 EDT
Sender: dae...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 9
Why didn't Berkeley implement the security option? Those of us selling systems
to the DOD need to add it anyway and it would probably be nice if a common
implementation across all users of 4.3BSD TCP existed. Why do I care? The
security option requires some user space changes to programs like FTP and
TELNET besides just kernel changes.
Tim Tucker
Gould Computer Systems Division
tuc...@gswd-vms.Gould.COM
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!uwvax!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!hoptoad!gnu
From: g...@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IP options implementation
Message-ID: <2364@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sat, 4-Jul-87 23:31:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.2364
Posted: Sat Jul 4 23:31:13 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jul-87 05:36:27 EDT
References: <8706301311.AA01944@gswd-vms.Gould.COM>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 13
tucker%mycr...@gswd-vms.Gould.COM (Tim Tucker) wrote:
> Why didn't Berkeley implement the security option? Those of us selling systems
> to the DOD need to add it anyway and it would probably be nice if a common
> implementation across all users of 4.3BSD TCP existed.
I have an idea -- why doesn't Gould implement it, and post the changes
to the net, or send them to Berkeley? You seem to be the first to need
it, and making it available for free, like Berkeley did with the whole
protocol implementation, makes it likely that "a common implementation
across all users" will exist.
--
{dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu g...@ingres.berkeley.edu
Alt.all: the alternative radio of the Usenet. Contributions welcome - post 'em