Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!joyce!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!gatech!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: BSD:sockets::SVID:(what?)
Message-ID: <10415@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 30 Jun 88 17:08:14 GMT
References: <5968@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> <2820@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 35

In article <2820@ttidca.TTI.COM> mb@ttidca.tti.com (Michael Bloom) writes:

>>	What are the SVID and POSIX eqivalents of sockets in BSD?
>
>That's a real good question.  For now, SV3 has no *close* equivalents.

There are various third party vendors (like Lachman and Wollongong)
who offer the entire TCP/IP suite, including a socket library for
SVR3. Some of these implementations are streams-based and some are not.

>TCP/IP has been promised for 5.4, but the big (hear this, AT&T?)
>question is "via what mechanism?"

Streams is the natural mechanism to implement communication protocols
in SVR3 and higher.
Besides, if you're provided with a socket emulation library, you really
don't care what the kernel implementation looks like.

>Portions of "the big question are": Will IP/UDP/TCP be rewritten as
>streams modules?

They've already been rewritten. See above.

>Will streams itself be different in 5.4? Sun has documented that they
>had to "extend" streams just to be able to provide a streams terminal
>driver that could handle the bsd functionality not present in system V
>tty drivers.

You can add stream modules to support whatever interface you want.
I guess Sun wanted to provide a BSD-like tty interface, so they had
to write an appropriate stream module to support their ioctl's, etc.
I don't see why the streams mechanism itself would have to be changed.
    
    Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

    UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell		ARPA: ekrell@ulysses.att.com