Removing T/TCP and replacing it with something simpler

[Julian Elischer]

Andre Oppermann wrote:

>Mark Allman wrote:
>  
>
>>>Thus after the removal of T/TCP for the reasons above I want to provide
>>>a work-alike replacement for T/TCP's functionality:
>>>      
>>>
>>I haven't fully digested this yet.  But, I'll voice my distaste for
>>implementing things that just seem to "Make Sense".  That's a model that
>>has been used and is used by other operating systems and those of us who
>>watch packets can attest that things that "Make Sense" often don't and
>>likely would have benefitted by a bit more thought and a bit more
>>vetting.  I would be happier if something like this were vetted out a
>>bit more (written up, digested by folks, etc.)  before it went into
>>anything but someone's experimental kernel.  Just my two cents.
>>    
>>
>
>Sure.  To make you sleep better it will be disabled by default (like
>T/TCP) and possibly even not compliled in by default (#ifdef'd).  If
>enabled and compiled in it does not automatically enable itself for all
>and everything.  The application has to enable it on the socket as well.
>
>A writeup will follow once I get there.  I made this request before I
>start working on it to prevent to waste my time on it if people wanted
>to religiously stick to T/TCP.
>  
>

couldn't you do it with a spoofing interface?
i.e. tcp sessions going through get turned into something that loks like 
ttcp
on the wire and converted back at teh other end?