Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:26:52 +0100 From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) To: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com>, njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk, tlambert@primenet.com Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TIME_WAIT/FIN_WAIT_2... Message-ID: <E0ydYvV-00032t-00@oak63.doc.ic.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com> "Re: TIME_WAIT/FIN_WAIT_2..." (May 23, 5:17pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 23, 5:17pm, Jim Shankland wrote: } Subject: Re: TIME_WAIT/FIN_WAIT_2... > njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) wrote: > > On May 22, 5:25pm, Jim Shankland wrote: > > } Subject: Re: TIME_WAIT/FIN_WAIT_2... > > > > That was me. I don't believe what you are saying is correct. > > A process can place a socket in TIME_WAIT_2 by issuing a > > shutdown(fd, 1) while continuing to read from it. > > You mean FIN_WAIT_2, and you're right as far as you go, of course; > but you're missing the point. None of these timeouts/probes/etc. > apply if the end in FIN_WAIT_2 still has its socket open for reading. > In that case, there is no timeout (other than normal retransmit timeouts, > keepalive if it's on, etc.). Ah, yes, *thwap*. Niall To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0ydYvV-00032t-00>