On Fri, 5 Mar 2021, Andrew Cagney wrote:
The original idea was that connections were immutable -- all changes were in
state objects.
I think that explains:
- /* my stuff */
-
- /* Phase 2 ID payload info about my user */
- uint8_t st_myuserprotoid; /*
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:52, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>
> > | - instantiate non-template connections (this idea keeps coming up on IRC)
>
> > Then connections were derived from other ones, with more details
> > filled in. This was instantiation. It
| From: Andrew Cagney
| (is "coding twine" original?)
"Baling wire" is a term of art for jury-rigged fixes. "Haywire" is
another word for baling wire, but with difference connotations..
All the balers we had used "binder twine". Baling wire seems like a bad
idea. It seems easy to be leave
> - .has_client implies that .client's subnet is valid
> even though the actual connection's subnet/port was written into
> .client the subnet part is assumed to be unchange
>
> - .protocol+.port (which presumably are never unchanged) are used when
> trying to match connections
> The .client's
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| - instantiate non-template connections (this idea keeps coming up on IRC)
Then connections were derived from other ones, with more details
filled in. This was instantiation. It could happen for a variety of
reasons and with a variety of
| From: Andrew Cagney
| - instantiate non-template connections (this idea keeps coming up on IRC)
This is off the top of my head. It might be wrong. And too
philosophical.
The original idea was that connections were immutable -- all changes
were in state objects.
It was convenient to add
I just pushed this change into the opportunistic code:
-* if we have protoport= set, narrow to it and zero out
-* ephemeral port
-*
-* warning: we know ports in this_client/that_client are 0 so
-* far
-*
-* XXX: ?
+* Save the
