Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:30:04 -0800 (PST) From: thinker <thinker@branda.to> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/25986: Socket would hang at LAST_ACK forever. Message-ID: <200103230730.f2N7U4I04670@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/25986; it has been noted by GNATS. From: thinker <thinker@branda.to> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/25986: Socket would hang at LAST_ACK forever. Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:28:45 +0000 > It is more dangerous to time out LAST-ACK than FINWAIT-2, because > FINWAIT-2 sockets normally transition into TIME-WAIT whereas LAST-ACK > sockets are destroyed immediately. Yes, timeout at LAST-ACK make we can't make sure that FIN had been received by the other end. But, if we can't not receive any ACK for a long time, it can be thinked as a broken host or network. Diagram in RFC 793, page 23, donot draw out what should we do when we had detect a connection broken (by any way) at ESTAB state, too. It tell us what is right but what is wrong. What I want to said is "Can we be imcompatable with dead site?". -- thinker@branda.to Branda Open Site (BOS) thinker.bbs@bbs.yzu.edu.tw http://www.branda.to/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103230730.f2N7U4I04670>