From owner-freebsd-net Tue Nov 2 17:57:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104D314D50; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:57:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whiste.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA11072; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:57:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:57:10 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Charles Randall Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, "'hackers@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: FreeBSD reboots In-Reply-To: <64003B21ECCAD11185C500805F31EC03046219A3@houston.matchlogic.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org because it breaks teh standard and teh networking guru's don't like it. Basically in the face of broken clients, (read PCs) the TCP protocol can gather an unacceptable collection of fin-wait-2 sessions. THis is in the way the protocol was designed. To reduce it we revert to fin-wait-1 and resent the fin. which results in either a FIN or a RST from th eother end if it's still alive. This gets rid of some of the sessions. but it is admittedly a hack. On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Charles Randall wrote: > From: Julian Elischer [mailto:julian@whistle.com] > >I have a patch to fix the fin-wait-2 problem.. > > Any reason this could't be applied to -stable with a corresponding sysctl > variable? > > Charles > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message