On Friday 30 May 2008 11:35:56 Robert Blayzor wrote: > On May 30, 2008, at 4:47 AM, David Malone wrote: > > There has been some talk about this sort of problem on the IETF TCP > > Maintainers list. I don't think any good conclusion was reached - > > whatever the solution was certainly needs to be tunable per-socket > > because this behaviour is perfectly valid in some situations but a > > bit of a pain in others. > > A timeout value would be fine. Obviously if the client keeps sending > back packets with a 0 size, there should be some option or work around > to tell the stack to drop the connection. There than to have the > server lock up resources on a "dead connection". Unfortunately we're > talking about the internet here, we can't insure that every one of the > clients connecting to our servers behaves correctly! ;-) > > On a side note, I could easily fix this problem by frontending the > server with a Cisco PIX or ASA. I believe they have "half closed" > timers just for this purpose... Perhaps a kernel tunable knob would be > a nice option/fix/hack also.
pf does that, too. -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
