From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 22 13:28:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09601 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 13:28:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from heron.doc.ic.ac.uk (YceWX4fh0ZIQ5njISUJCCWrsrVZVbwui@heron.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.46.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA09538 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 13:27:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk) Received: from oak66.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.33.66] ([YGm4YICAwcIiOR8Rk4N9DrJygBudEoim]) by heron.doc.ic.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #3) id 0ycyPo-0006cn-00; Fri, 22 May 1998 21:27:44 +0100 Received: from njs3 by oak66.doc.ic.ac.uk with local (Exim 1.62 #3) id 0ycyPn-0002lv-00; Fri, 22 May 1998 21:27:43 +0100 From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 21:27:42 +0100 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: tcp states and sysctl's Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, I don't think a shutdown(2) sysctl is necessary. a) the BSD stack is currently compliant in this regard, if anything need's changing it's the client. b) no-one has produced any evidence to show that all these sockets in TIME_WAIT_2 are actully having a negative impact in performance on the system. Actually, I would seriously hope not, because otherwise this is a relatively easy DoS. (Though probably not as effective as a SYN flood.) If you do decide to put in a sysctl bear in mind that rsh uses shutdown(2) to close down one end of a socket so you don't want the timeout to be too short. Niall To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message