On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 1998 at 01:47:57AM +0200, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 2. Killing connections on a drop. This potentially violates the RFC
> > check rules on time wait unless you are very careful. Also tell me
> > why it cant be done in user space by turning /proc/net/ into a set
> > of temporary 'reject' filter rules
>
> The RFC TIME_WAIT rules only make sense when the connection endpoint
> (address/port) still exists. For a dynamic address that is gone that isn't
> the case.
Until a few months ago, I could frequently get the same IP address at
my ISP by redialing within a few seconds. (Now I have a static IP and
don't have to worry about this.)
It would be a shame if losing the ppp0 interface had killed all my
telnet sessions.
(Interestingly, data I send over a TCP connection while ppp0 is down
seems to get lost. When I reconnect, I can send more data, but the
data I sent while the connection was down seems to have disappeared
into a black hole. This causes problems with trn. I'm using 2.0.30.)
Kragen
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kragen Sitaker <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
A well designed system must take people into account. . . . It's hard to
build a system that provides strong authentication on top of systems that
can be penetrated by knowing someone's mother's maiden name. -- Schneier
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
