On 21/08/13 19:00, Joe Touch wrote:
So what would you use for muxing, if TCPMUX is not a good idea?
You need to roll your own. The requirements of systems vary widely, as
do the costs/benefits of different approaches.
I listed a few before, but here's a more comprehensive list:
-
On 21/08/13 20:03, Bob Braden wrote:
Indeed, TCPMUX is quite historic... it represents a Road Not Taken. My
memory is a bit hazy after 30+ years,
but I think there was a serious discussion around 1979 of using strings
instead of contact port numbers
for opening TCP connections. Here is the hazy
On 8/22/2013 12:44 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 21/08/13 19:00, Joe Touch wrote:
So what would you use for muxing, if TCPMUX is not a good idea?
You need to roll your own. The requirements of systems vary widely, as
do the costs/benefits of different approaches.
I listed a few before, but
On 20/08/13 17:01, Joe Touch wrote:
However, see my other message - it's hard to recommend an approach when
we don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.
The scenario is simple.
You want admin to open one port in the firewall when the project is
started. Going through the
On 8/21/2013 12:50 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 20/08/13 17:01, Joe Touch wrote:
However, see my other message - it's hard to recommend an approach when
we don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.
The scenario is simple.
You want admin to open one port in the firewall when the
On 8/21/2013 12:50 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
...
You want admin to open one port in the firewall when the project is
started. Going through the corporate process at this point is bearable
and makes sense.
Afterwards, you want to be able to expose arbitrary services through
that port without
On 21/08/13 17:12, Joe Touch wrote:
The real problem here IMO is how to distinguish between adding a
completely new application -- which should require approval process --
and adding a new component within an existing distributed application
-- which should be managed by devs themselves.
IMO
On 8/21/2013 8:31 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 21/08/13 17:12, Joe Touch wrote:
The real problem here IMO is how to distinguish between adding a
completely new application -- which should require approval process --
and adding a new component within an existing distributed application
--
On 8/15/2013 6:23 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
I totally agree. In fact, in the update to the TCP roadmap [1], we
added TCPMUX to the section on Historic and Undeployed Extensions,
though it definitely bears further discussion than is currently in the
roadmap. I think we should add a reference to
On 16/08/13 20:07, Joe Touch wrote:
On 8/15/2013 10:38 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 16/08/13 03:23, Wesley Eddy wrote:
There are semantics issues to; see draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00 for
information (this is being revised for resubmission shortly, FWIW).
I totally agree. In fact, in the
On 8/20/2013 5:35 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
If you want a multiplexer to serve different connections from a single
service port, you need a multiplexer server (tcpmux daemon, websockets,
whatever you want to call it).
Ack. The web server is a problem though, because you typically don't
have
On 8/15/2013 10:19 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 15/08/13 22:18, Joe Touch wrote:
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol
used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or can it be rather considered a dead protocol?
On 8/15/2013 10:38 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 16/08/13 03:23, Wesley Eddy wrote:
There are semantics issues to; see draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00 for
information (this is being revised for resubmission shortly, FWIW).
I totally agree. In fact, in the update to the TCP roadmap [1], we
On 8/10/2013 12:29 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 8/10/2013 1:43 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or can it be rather considered a dead
On 8/15/2013 4:18 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 8/10/2013 12:29 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 8/10/2013 1:43 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or
On 15/08/13 22:18, Joe Touch wrote:
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or can it be rather considered a dead protocol?
Specifically, if I implement a new TCPMUX daemon how
On 16/08/13 03:23, Wesley Eddy wrote:
There are semantics issues to; see draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00 for
information (this is being revised for resubmission shortly, FWIW).
I totally agree. In fact, in the update to the TCP roadmap [1], we
added TCPMUX to the section on Historic and
On 8/10/2013 1:43 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or can it be rather considered a dead protocol?
Specifically, if I implement a new
On 10/08/13 21:29, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 8/10/2013 1:43 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or can it be rather considered a dead protocol?
Hi all,
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or can it be rather considered a dead protocol?
Specifically, if I implement a new TCPMUX daemon how likely I am to
clash with an
20 matches
Mail list logo
