Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:30:38 +0000 From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> To: Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, "<net@freebsd.org>" <net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new TCP_IGNOREIDLE socket option Message-ID: <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F700B87@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1uX__JDEk9dLdJr3pdE1u848jaF_jTn%2B_mrP05bXqm_Pw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201301221511.02496.jhb@freebsd.org> <50FF06AD.402@networx.ch> <061B4EA5-6A93-48A0-A269-C2C3A3C7E77C@lakerest.net> <201302060746.43736.jhb@freebsd.org> <511292C9.4040307@mu.org> <E6BF2B74-175F-49D9-B480-8941294D2E19@neville-neil.com> <51166019.9040104@mu.org> <CAN6yY1uX__JDEk9dLdJr3pdE1u848jaF_jTn%2B_mrP05bXqm_Pw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 10, 2013, at 6:05, Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> wrote: > One idea that popped into my head (and may be completely ridiculous, > is to make its availability dependent on a kernel option and have > warning in NOTES about it contravening normal and accepted practice > and that it can cause serious problems both for yourself and for > others using the network. Also, if it gets merged, don't call it TCP_IGNOREIDLE. Call it TCP_BLAST_DA= NGEROUSLY_AFTER_IDLE. Lars=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F700B87>