Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!andre
From: andre@nrc-ut.UUCP (Andre' Hut)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Are simultaneous TCP opens useful?
Message-ID: <280@nrc-ut.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Aug-87 17:48:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: nrc-ut.280
Posted: Thu Aug 27 17:48:26 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 06:23:15 EDT
References: <1261@spice.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: andre@nrc-ut.UUCP (Andre' Hut)
Organization: Network Research Corp.  Salt Lake City, UT
Lines: 28

In article <1261@spice.cs.cmu.edu> ecc@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Eric Cooper) writes:
>Can anyone defend the usefulness of allowing simultaneous active OPENs to
>result in a single connection?  It seems to me that a pair of would-be
>communicants cannot rely on this to succeed, since it would depend on the
>relative time at which they give the OPEN command.
>
>Suppose an implementation rejected incoming SYNs when in the SYN-SENT state,
>instead of entering SYN-RECEIVED.  How could you ever observe that this
>implementation is really nonconforming, and not just faster or slower?
>
>Am I wrong? Does anyone have examples of applications that depend on this
>feature?

yeah.. A pipe.  A TCP connection can be used as a pipe if it connects to
itself.  This sounds wierd, but it works, and its a guaranteed simultaneous
open.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                sdcsvax-\         ihnp4-\
                         \               \
Andre' Hut              sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!andre
                         /              /        /
                hplabs--/ ucbvax!calma-/        /
				utah-gr!uplherc/
Network Research Corporation
923 Executive Park Dr. Suite C
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------