Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:52:36 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com> Cc: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@room52.net>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new TCP_IGNOREIDLE socket option Message-ID: <201302200852.37270.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAMOc5cxgpi6MVcJBDDt8cwTdScU3O=NT22TH_YC7bfgxu5Y02g@mail.gmail.com> References: <201301221511.02496.jhb@freebsd.org> <51242B05.1040003@room52.net> <CAMOc5cxgpi6MVcJBDDt8cwTdScU3O=NT22TH_YC7bfgxu5Y02g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:37:54 pm Sepherosa Ziehau wrote: > John, > > I came across this draft several days ago, you may be interested: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-00 Yes, that is extremely relevant. My application does use its own rate-limiting. And now that I've read this in full, this does seem to very much be what I want and is a better solution than ignoring idle handling entirely. Ironic that this was posted a few weeks after my patch. :) Clearly this is not an isolated workflow. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201302200852.37270.jhb>