Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 06:27:58 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Cc: loverso@sitaranetworks.com (John R. LoVerso), current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <54200.928556878@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jun 1999 22:17:16 -0000." <199906042217.PAA22772@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In message <199906042217.PAA22772@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" writes: >> 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. > >Then lets go off a write RFCxxxx and get RFC1123 off the books, it's way >over due for an overhaul anyway. > I think it has been attempted, but gaining rough concensus on a document which declares N implementations "junk" is hard to get. -- 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 messagehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54200.928556878>