From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <03aa01c17751$54599d60$b6f7c6d4@cybercable.fr>
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@fr.inter.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <200111270857.IAA07692@localhost.localdomain>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:39:32 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2b472cca-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> I'm being a little simplistic here, but since there are assigned
> port numbers, why not have the bind/connect subsystems make the
> decision based on port, with a default for anything else?

Yes that is too simplistic.  Potentially you have large N protocol
rules and some of those protocols do not behave in ways you can
predict or monitor without carrying around a huge amount of baggage.

A silly example is HTTP:  It should be on port 80, but lots of
people like using 8080 or other strange port #s.

As other's have said, it should be left to the application.

So far, only TCP/IP has been discussed, but do you build all
those rules etc into all the other protocols as well?

I don't think so.