Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status

[Martin Sustrik <[e-mail]>]

On 21/08/13 19:00, Joe Touch wrote:

>> So what would you use for muxing, if TCPMUX is not a good idea?
>
> You need to roll your own. The requirements of systems vary widely, as
> do the costs/benefits of different approaches.
>
> I listed a few before, but here's a more comprehensive list:
>      - service per message
>          demux based on message ID
>          use IPC (interprocess comm) to handoff internal
>          to your system
>
>      - service per connection
>          demux based on the first message in an
>          association (TCP or UDP), and either continue to
>          forward messages to a different process or handoff
>          the connection

So, if I proceed with this option why not use RFC1078 to implement it? 
Why write a new RFC if there's an old one that fits the bill?

>
>      - subservice on different ports
>          determine what subservice you want to initiate,
>          start it on an ephemeral port, and indicate the
>          port number in-band (e.g., as with FTP and others)

Martin