From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jun 4 12:57:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (parker-T1-2-gw.sf3d.best.net [209.157.165.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B3515032 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:57:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jas@flyingfox.com) Received: (from jas@localhost) by biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id OAA03028; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:01:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Shankland Message-Id: <199906042101.OAA03028@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com> To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie, krowett@rowett.org Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@critter.freebsd.dk In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.56.19990604111235.00ae3ac0@rowett.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Kevin J. Rowett" writes: > The central issue of keepalives is that, for one machine, they don't > create a significant load. Multiplied by the number of machines on > the Internet, it can become a problem. No offense, but that is the most ludicrous assertion I've heard since Slobodan Milosevic claimed that all those bedraggled people streaming across the Albanian border were actually actors being paid $5.50 per day by NATO. Hint: If everybody turned on TCP keepalives, what percentage of the traffic on Internet backbones do you think would be keepalive packets? Jim Shankland NLynx Systems, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message