> this is less and less of a problem because > if you lose your link on PPP > you are liable to get a differetn IP address on your redial.
Not true. Only if you're using a dynamic IP address setup. Most business connections have a static connection, so they'll end up with the same IP address everytime. > for network outages in the middle it works though.. > but I'd rather have a keepalive of 10 x 4 hour pings before failure.. > (or something as long..) I think PHK's one-week KEEPALIVE is acceptable to me. It lets me logon to freefall and have the link go bad overnight, yet still keep me on in the morning when I check it. Nate > > It's really a per-connection decision on what makes sense > > julian > > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Matthew Hunt wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:40:34PM -0700, k...@lyris.com wrote: > > > > > declared dead. I think it somewhat silly to say that this is consuming a > > > lot of bandwidth. The average mail message (4k) is 4 packets, the average > > > > The other issue is that you don't necessarily want the TCP connection > > to close just because you lose connectivity for a few hours. If we > > send keepalives by default, might that not surprise users who don't > > expect it? > > > > I'm thinking of long-lived connections like telnet and ssh; if you're > > doing work over such a connection, it would be nice if the connection > > endured an outage while you're away sleeping, like it does without > > keepalives. > > > > -- > > Matthew Hunt <m...@astro.caltech.edu> * UNIX is a lever for the > > http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * intellect. -J.R. Mashey > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
