From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jul 25 18: 0:46 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from silby.com (cb34181-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.14.173.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA4437B405 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:00:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 36079 invoked by uid 1000); 26 Jul 2001 01:00:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Jul 2001 01:00:40 -0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:00:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Sean Chittenden Cc: Barney Wolff , , Subject: Re: TCP sequence numbers: RFC1948 patch ready for testing In-Reply-To: <20010725173859.C65546@rand.tgd.net> Message-ID: <20010725195901.W36006-100000@achilles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Sean Chittenden wrote: > > day or two suffice? I'm not concerned about rekeying breaking a few > > connections given that it will only happen occasionally. > > While I agree that rekeying isn't something that should be > removed, I am concerned with your last sentence. Breaking TCP sessions > strikes me as an indicator that there needs to be some way of > configuring this. Is there any chance you could make this a tunable > variable through sysctl such as the number of seconds between rekeying? By "breaking a few connections", I was referring to delaying the establishment of a few connections when TIME_WAIT wraparound occurs, not the termination of active connections. I apologize for the confusion. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message