Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf