How not to get a protocol implementation merged [LWN.net]

How not to get a protocol implementation merged

Posted Jan 13, 2011 18:48 UTC (Thu) by caitlinbestler (guest, #32532)
Parent article: How not to get a protocol implementation merged

Do we really want the kernel cluttered with application protocols that
pose as transport protocols, but have the focus of an application protocol?

If you want to think like an application protocol,and actually focus on
issues like what your current customer base really needs, then stick with
user-mode libraries and use an existing transport layer protocol. There is
no need to be a kernel module.

If you do think you have the case for a general purpose transport protocol,
what solutions are you solving for generic transports that are not already
solved by TCP, UDP, DCCP or SCTP?

Not having IPV6 support is really just the tip of the iceberg that says
this particular protocol is really application specific and not a general
purpose solution.

(Log in to post comments)

How not to get a protocol implementation merged

Posted Jan 20, 2011 10:28 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]

>> Do we really want the kernel cluttered with application protocols that
pose as transport protocols, but have the focus of an application protocol? <<

Well, if those application protocols can be "compiled out" in the kernel configuration, why not?
They could even been regrouped under a 'application specific protocol' group in the kernel configuration which would default to N.
It's quite similar to having a device driver in the kernel for some rare hardware..