From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jun 1 13:46:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from wopr.caltech.edu (wopr.caltech.edu [131.215.240.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DD615824 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:46:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mph@wopr.caltech.edu) Received: (from mph@localhost) by wopr.caltech.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA22765; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:42:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mph) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:42:32 -0700 From: Matthew Hunt To: Julian Elischer Cc: David Schwartz , Poul-Henning Kamp , kip@lyris.com, Nate Williams , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <19990601134232.A22685@wopr.caltech.edu> References: <000001beac6b$dc847920$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: ; from Julian Elischer on Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:30:31PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:30:31PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > maybe we should fix our SERVER apps.. > e.g. telnetd, sshd, etc. to have 1 week timeouts IIRC, it is not possible to specify how long the keepalive interval should be, using the socket interface. Do you suggest we add a new interface not present in other Unix implementations, or that we make SO_KEEPALIVE always have a one-week timeout, surprising the other applications that expect it to be faster? Both of these seem remarkably unappealing to me. Matt -- Matthew Hunt * Inertia is a property http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * of matter. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message