From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jun 4 18:24:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81D714E5A for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:24:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id SAA10395; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:24:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:24:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199906050124.SAA10395@apollo.backplane.com> To: Date:Fri@apollo.backplane.com, 04@FreeBSD.ORG, Jun@FreeBSD.ORG, 1999@FreeBSD.ORG, 15:25:37.-0700@apollo.backplane.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :At 01:08 PM 6/4/99 , Matthew Dillon wrote: :>:had not been done, then the Internet would not have grown as it did today. :>: :>: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. :> :> As I said. People are arguing about keepalives without knowing how they :> work. : :That's an excellent point! People with less correct implementations of TCP :keepalives will use freeBSD's justification as their justification for :turning on TCP keepalives by default. Umm... that is about as twisted a reasoning as I could imagine. I don't consider it a useful argument. The sky might be falling too, better not go outside! -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message