Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:09:29 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Matthew Hunt" <mph@astro.caltech.edu> Cc: "Julian Elischer" <julian@whistle.com>, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, <kip@lyris.com>, "Nate Williams" <nate@mt.sri.com>, <current@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <000001beac73$097b3ac0$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <19990601140146.A23081@wopr.caltech.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, exactly, everybody wants something different. That's why you don't want to enforce a new policy in the kernel. Let each app choose the policy that makes the most sense for it, either with or without command line options or whatnot. But an application that is not happy with the default TCP timeout semantics and doesn't enforce something else is broken. DS > On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:59:48PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > I think he was suggesting that the apps close the connection if they > > receive no data from some amount of time. (Isn't this common sense?) > > No, I frequently keep telnet/ssh connections idle for long periods, > and have no particular desire for them to close on me. > > -- > Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> * Stay close to the Vorlon. > http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001beac73$097b3ac0$021d85d1>