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