From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jun 4 10:56:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1723E15A43 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:56:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id TAA04934; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:56:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: "John R. LoVerso" Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:38:11 EDT." <37580F03.88EFB07A@sitara.net> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 19:56:02 +0200 Message-ID: <4932.928518962@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <37580F03.88EFB07A@sitara.net>, "John R. LoVerso" writes: >But, consider going back to the discusssions leading up to the Host Requirements >RFC (1122). The particular problem was that the original timeout value for >keepalives was tiny (a few minutes). 1122 dictated the corrections for this. >Here are the important points from section 4.2.3.6: But RFC 1122 pretty much entirely predates the "modern internet user". While I fully supported the policy back then, I no longer do. I still think the right thing is: default to keepalives. set the timeout to a week. -- 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