In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Well, consider the scenario of an application which opens a control connection
> and a data connection, and the data connection remains idle for some hours
> while you get to the beginning of the queue, and then the transfer starts. The
> data connection
Cesar Barros wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 04:33:07PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If the administrator of the NAT meant for you to have a
> > permanent mapping,
> > she would have put one there. Using keepalives to hold a NAT entry open
> > indefinitely without activity would be consi
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 04:33:07PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 04:19:31PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > > > This means that keepalive is useless for keeping alive more than
> > > > one connection
> > > > to a given host.
>
> > > Actually, keepalive is usele
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 04:19:31PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > This means that keepalive is useless for keeping alive more than
> > > one connection
> > > to a given host.
> > Actually, keepalive is useless for keeping connections
> > alive anyway. It's
> > very badly named. It's p
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 04:27:07PM +0100, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
> > Yeah. But I'm stuck with a NAT (which isn't mine, btw) which uses 2.1.xxx-2.2.x
> > (according to nmap). Which had a default of 15 *minutes* (as I read in a HOWTO
> > somewhere). I'm trying to convince the sysadmin to raise i
> Yeah. But I'm stuck with a NAT (which isn't mine, btw) which uses 2.1.xxx-2.2.x
> (according to nmap). Which had a default of 15 *minutes* (as I read in a HOWTO
> somewhere). I'm trying to convince the sysadmin to raise it to two hours, but I
> bet it'll be hard.
ipchains -S timeoutval 0 0 is
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 10:14:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 09:31:56PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> >
> > I've been doing some experiments with the keepalive code in 2.4.0-test10 here
> > (I want to avoid the 2.2.x NAT I'm using (for which I don't have root) from
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 09:31:56PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
>
> I've been doing some experiments with the keepalive code in 2.4.0-test10 here
> (I want to avoid the 2.2.x NAT I'm using (for which I don't have root) from
> timing out my connections). To test it, I reduced both tcp_keepa
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 12:52:12PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
>
> > Then what do you do when you are behind a NAT? And how do you expire entries in
> > ESTABLISHED state that could stay lingering forever without some sort of
> > keepalive? (The F
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> Then what do you do when you are behind a NAT? And how do you expire entries in
> ESTABLISHED state that could stay lingering forever without some sort of
> keepalive? (The FINs might have been lost due to a conectivity transient, so
> you can ha
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 04:19:31PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > This means that keepalive is useless for keeping alive more than
> > one connection
> > to a given host.
>
> Actually, keepalive is useless for keeping connections alive anyway. It's
> very badly named. It's purpose is t
> This means that keepalive is useless for keeping alive more than
> one connection
> to a given host.
Actually, keepalive is useless for keeping connections alive anyway. It's
very badly named. It's purpose is to detect dead peers, not keep peers
alive.
DS
-
To unsubscribe fro
I've been doing some experiments with the keepalive code in 2.4.0-test10 here
(I want to avoid the 2.2.x NAT I'm using (for which I don't have root) from
timing out my connections). To test it, I reduced both tcp_keepalive_time and
tcp_keepalive_intvl to 1. Using ethereal, I saw that the keepali
13 matches
Mail list logo
