From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Mar 22 23:30: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D45D37B71D for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:30:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f2N7U4I04670; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:30:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:30:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200103230730.f2N7U4I04670@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: thinker Subject: Re: kern/25986: Socket would hang at LAST_ACK forever. Reply-To: thinker Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/25986; it has been noted by GNATS. From: thinker To: Garrett Wollman 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