From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 15:30:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 15:30:24 -0400 Received: from mail2.megatrends.com ([155.229.80.11]:30477 "EHLO mail2.megatrends.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 15:30:12 -0400 Message-ID: <1355693A51C0D211B55A00105ACCFE6402B9DECC@ATL_MS1> From: Venkatesh Ramamurthy To: "'Jesse Pollard'" , Venkatesh Ramamurthy , "'Alan Cox'" , Venkatesh Ramamurthy Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: [RFC] Direct Sockets Support?? Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 15:25:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Doesn't this bypass all of the network security controls? Granted - it is > completely reasonable in a dedicated environment, but I would think the > security loss would prevent it from being used for most usage. Direct Sockets makes sense only in clustering (server farms) to reduce intra-farm communication. It is *not* supposed to be used for regular internet. Direct Sockets over subnets is also tough to implement it across different topology subnets. Fabrics like Infiniband provide security on hardware, so there is no need to worry about it. The simple point is that hw supports TCP/IP, then why do we need a software TCP/IP over it?