Kacheong Poon wrote: > James Carlson wrote: > > >> That seems to me to get more complicated. Why should we apply more >> implementation effort to something that is intentionally narrow use. >> > > > Hey, I thought implementation effort did not matter as the current > proposal actually took more effort to implement than a simple > socket option ;-) Well this is not completely true. The code changes that were done, related to IPsec, in implement this feature largely existed and was reused/re-factored in an effective manner instead of replicating the same functionality (implementing logic of add/update/delete keys) at the TCP layer again.
Again I would like to reiterate there is this convenience of using the feature right away without doing any changes to user application and not needing any patches, in the mentioned proposal and this convenience is not there in any other proposals. ~Girish _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
