Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:15:57 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@hub.freebsd.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <22444.928268157@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:29:12 PDT." <19990601192912.68CC115787@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <19990601192912.68CC115787@hub.freebsd.org>, "Jonathan M. Bresler" w rites: > we should consult with hte tcp-impl mailing list and get their >take on the matter before we decide what to do here. the address is >tcp-impl@grc.nasa.gov. I already did, but it is such a hot issue that they don't get into it. A good summary of the "traditionalist" view can be found in: http://tcp-impl.grc.nasa.gov/tcp-impl/list/archive/1246.html I agree in principle, but not in practice. Having no keep-alives just doesn't work when WIN* boxes drop carrier and get another IP# when they come back, or when they just randomly crashes... Saying that it should be an application function is bogus in my book, since the problem is valid for all TCP users, and there are clearly not any reason to duplicate the code in telnetd, ftpd, talkd, &c &c. Of course if the application has particular hysteric requirements (ircd anyone) it can implement its own methods as well. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22444.928268157>