Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.internals:7608 comp.unix.solaris:21725 comp.unix.sys5.r4:8204 comp.unix.bsd:14709 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!noc.near.net!sun3!ddlgw!ddl From: ddl@harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: DLPI Vs BSD Sockets Vs Sys V TLI Message-ID: <486@ddlgw.UUCP> Date: 26 Aug 94 00:10:47 GMT References: <33ft3u$mn3@news.tamu.edu> <33iecq$leg@crl2.crl.com> <1994Aug25.165610.18709@noao.edu> Followup-To: poster Distribution: inet Organization: Internet Lines: 25 In article <1994Aug25.165610.18709@noao.edu>, rstevens@noao.edu (W. Richard Stevens) writes: | > 3rd, TLI is the layer 4/ transport layer interface stream API. Functionally | > equivalent to Berkeley Sockets API. But the sockets API on SVR4.* is | > implimented as a library translation layer into TLI calls. SLOW! Or | > more accurately, slower than calling TLI direcly. | | Oh no, not this myth again. | | My understanding is that sockets calls are translated into TPI, *not* TLI, [...] It's actually worse than that. (Or at least it was last time I looked into it.) Socket calls are translated into TPI + some-special-APIs-that-make- obscure-socket-calls-work. Trouble is, the extra APIs aren't part of the standard TPI docs (at least they weren't) or any other public document. So you can implement a stack to the TPI spec and most things will work from socket calls--but not everything. Of course, this matters most if you want to write a replacement tcp/ip stack (as opposed to a different protocol) since detailed socket call semantics are best known in the context of tcp/ip. For a non-tcp/ip protocol, chances are nobody will know the difference, especially if they are writing to your stack to begin with... Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*