In your previous mail you wrote: > => what I propose is not pure per-process control, it is to put the > control in the context of processes. It gives immediatly a per-process > control but with a way to manage the context from applications, it gives > a per-socket control too. I didn't understand how the per-process context also gives you per-socket control.
=> this is like playing with UIDs, which are in the context of the application and can be set by set[e]uid() & co, to permit or deny access to privileged ports. My idea is to tune the context before performing some operations and to reset it after to its previous setup. Are you considering having setsockopts in addition to per-process context controls? => we can get both or even implement the per-process context via setsockopts. Or are you arguing that the setsockopt type of control is not necessary? => they are not necessary when a more general/flexible type of control is available and I argue this is the case for the process context stuff. Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
