Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 13 Jan 2022 12:17:25 -0800
From:      Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>
To:        Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Cc:        Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com>, net@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: compressed TIME-WAIT to be decomissioned
Message-ID:  <YeCI1Qw6MPgSBAnd@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <933E3937-5ED9-4483-9C7E-1A2B91C78CD1@lurchi.franken.de>
References:  <Yd8im/VkTU1zdvOi@FreeBSD.org> <feacfc86850c77ca87b3216b0b7adc17@bsdforge.com> <YeBVLsoGkEsVJEAI@FreeBSD.org> <933E3937-5ED9-4483-9C7E-1A2B91C78CD1@lurchi.franken.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 09:06:50PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
M> > I'm talking about statistics that I recently committed to CURRENT only:
M> > 
M> > # netstat -sp tcp | grep TIME-WAIT
M> >        3 times connection in TIME-WAIT responded with ACK
M> >        0 times connection in TIME-WAIT was actively recycled
M> >        0 times connection in TIME-WAIT responded with RST
M> > 
M> > They show were the TIME-WAITs actually used.
M> Aren't they also used on the client side to avoid reusing the same 5-tuple
M> with the 2 * MSL period. This is not covered by the above (and possibly not
M> relevant on the machine you where looking at).

Good point. We are not counting this kind of use.

-- 
Gleb Smirnoff



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YeCI1Qw6MPgSBAnd>