From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Jun  6  0:20:41 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6620E14DD3
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun,  6 Jun 1999 00:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no)
Received: (qmail 34761 invoked by uid 1001); 6 Jun 1999 07:20:35 +0000 (GMT)
To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com
Cc: joelh@gnu.org, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ?
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 5 Jun 1999 23:27:23 -0700 (PDT)"
References: <199906060627.XAA17722@apollo.backplane.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 09:20:35 +0200
Message-ID: <34759.928653635@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> :Huh?  I was just considering writing the patch for this.  What
> :application problems would this create?
> :
> :The worst thing I can see is that it would mean that changing the
> :timeout value on a running system wouldn't affect already opened
> :sockets.  Even that may be changable by an external utility if I can
> :think of a way to handle the locking in userland.
> :
> 
>    I see no use whatsoever for being able to specify per-socket keepalive
>    timeouts.

Well, if it was implemented with the TCP_KEEPALIVE option, it would be
one more part of the system that complied with the X/Open specifications.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message