On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Simon Walton wrote:
Thanks. I did not go with ipfw2 partly because of concerns about
whether it was stable enough (this is on 4.10) and also because
it requires rebuilding part of userland. Perhaps this would
be the way to go after all.
The only way you'll know is to try
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Chris wrote:
whats the point of keeping a connection alive (hung) to a dead network
for 2 hours tho? That I dont understand either.
Chris
I used to wonder that myself. From the perspective of minimizing the
number of open sockets, it makes sense to kill connections to
On 12/08/06, Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Simon Walton wrote:
> Is there any reason why the default initial timeout for keep alive
> packets needs to be as long as two hours? This period causes the dynamic
> rules in my firewall filter to timeout.
>
> Is the
Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Simon Walton wrote:
Is there any reason why the default initial timeout for keep alive
packets needs to be as long as two hours? This period causes the
dynamic rules in my firewall filter to timeout.
Is there a major objection to reducing the de
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Simon Walton wrote:
Is there any reason why the default initial timeout for keep alive packets
needs to be as long as two hours? This period causes the dynamic rules in
my firewall filter to timeout.
Is there a major object
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Simon Walton wrote:
Is there any reason why the default initial timeout for keep alive
packets needs to be as long as two hours? This period causes the dynamic
rules in my firewall filter to timeout.
Is there a major objection to reducing the default idle time to
say 3
