From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun May 24 04:24:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA03708 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 04:24:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from heron.doc.ic.ac.uk (W7CiV77tdtsAPDPfyhDCSarf2oH4uVqk@heron.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.46.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA03703; Sun, 24 May 1998 04:24:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk) Received: from oak63.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.33.63] ([fZPhw0JoUbxK9T1e0ZLluu3B3uEacyLz]) by heron.doc.ic.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #3) id 0ydYsN-0002f2-00; Sun, 24 May 1998 12:23:40 +0100 Received: from njs3 by oak63.doc.ic.ac.uk with local (Exim 1.62 #3) id 0ydYsN-00032b-00; Sun, 24 May 1998 12:23:39 +0100 From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:23:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: Terry Lambert "Re: TIME_WAIT/FIN_WAIT_2..." (May 23, 8:38pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Terry Lambert , njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) Subject: Re: TIME_WAIT/FIN_WAIT_2... Cc: jas@flyingfox.com, mark@vmunix.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, isp@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On May 23, 8:38pm, Terry Lambert wrote: } Subject: Re: TIME_WAIT/FIN_WAIT_2... > > Can I suggest that if you receive a response after step C, which you call > > the CLOSE-WAIT response, then the TCP stack should remain in FIN-WAIT-2 > > with an infinite timeout, because the response indicates that the remote > > TCP stack not broken and moreover that the remote client is not finished > > sending yet. (i.e. the 11 minute timeout you mention later would not > > be used) > > You can't do this. You must constantly ask the client "Are you done > yet? Are you done yet?" because you have no other method of > distinguishing a broken client from a non-broken client. > > I understand why you would want to suggest this: it narrows the > non-compliance window considerably. Actually, I just hadn't thought about it enough, but I prefer your reason, lets stick with it. ;) > > I think that this is a bug Microsoft would be eager to fix, after all, > > if it affects FreeBSD web servers it also affects NT web servers, as > > well as NT file servers, Exchange servers etc etc. > > > I think you are wrong. Microsoft implements the "fix" I have stated, > and is not affected by the problem. Ah, I didn't realise they were using this "fix". > The "problem" would be that Microsoft clients cause UNIX servers > to behave badly, but NT servers are unaffected. > I would think that this would be a problem Microsoft would be eager > to exacerbate in order to make UNIX servers look less viable than > NT servers. Do you really think they are that slimy? I know they pretend they use hungarian notation to encourage other companies to follow that convention resulting in a 10% drop in their programmer productivity, but thats just X-files stuff. ;) Niall. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message