From owner-freebsd-transport@freebsd.org Fri Nov 25 20:36:12 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-transport@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454F0C55148 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:36:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@karels.net) Received: from mail.karels.net (mail.karels.net [63.231.190.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20ADAC9 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:36:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@karels.net) Received: from mail.karels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.karels.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id uAPKa32t001436 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 14:36:03 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from mike@karels.net) Message-Id: <201611252036.uAPKa32t001436@mail.karels.net> To: freebsd-transport@freebsd.org Subject: virtualizing keepalive parameters From: Mike Karels Reply-to: mike@karels.net Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 14:36:03 -0600 X-BeenThere: freebsd-transport@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of transport level network protocols in FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:36:12 -0000 I just "virtualized" the TCP keepalive parameters for a project at work, although it isn't actually VIMAGE. I could easily do the same for VIMAGE. It seems like the right thing to do, but I don't know if there have been previous discussions on this. Are there any reasons not to do this? Thanks, Mike From owner-freebsd-transport@freebsd.org Fri Nov 25 21:46:01 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-transport@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F96FC55219 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:46:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mx1.sbone.de (mx1.sbone.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:3ffc::401:25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.sbone.de", Issuer "SBone.DE" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14D0C11A for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:46:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mail.sbone.de (mail.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C1AF25D3860; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:45:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98276D1F825; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:45:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sbone.de Received: from mail.sbone.de ([IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) by content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vREd16Ehp0GG; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.111.64.116] (unknown [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:4410:dca9:fcc9:4209:a0d7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38B81D1F7F9; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:45:46 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" To: "Mike Karels" Cc: freebsd-transport@freebsd.org Subject: Re: virtualizing keepalive parameters Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:45:45 +0000 Message-ID: <6CC67D12-3304-45FB-9CAE-A99586F4BF20@lists.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <201611252036.uAPKa32t001436@mail.karels.net> References: <201611252036.uAPKa32t001436@mail.karels.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6067) X-BeenThere: freebsd-transport@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of transport level network protocols in FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:46:01 -0000 On 25 Nov 2016, at 20:36, Mike Karels wrote: > I just "virtualized" the TCP keepalive parameters for a project at > work, > although it isn't actually VIMAGE. I could easily do the same for > VIMAGE. > It seems like the right thing to do, but I don't know if there have > been > previous discussions on this. Are there any reasons not to do this? There is a possibility that “less trusted” parties inside a jail could keep lots of sockets open for long, but that risk is there anyway. So no, I don’t see a reason not to do it. Feel free to add me to the Review once you upload it. /bz