> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:11:11AM -0400, Brian > Utterback wrote: > > This sounds to me like it needs to run through an > ARC case. > > Most definitely.
Yes, it's going to be an ARC case. > > Personally, what you are trying to do seems to me > to be a misuse of > > the keepalive to work around a broken firewall. > Which may be desirable > > feature, I don't know. > > How can one misuse TCP_KEEPALIVE? I can only think: > because keeping > idle connections is inappropriate (not for us to > decide), or because it > would be violate the policy that the firewall is > trying to enforce (the > firewall can still tell that the connection is idle > though, even with > TCP_KEEPALIVE). The problem I'm trying to solve is for services like telnet or rlogin which don't have a way to enable keepalive at either the application level or the TCP level. Yes, doing this may violate company policy, but that's a separate issue. > I would like to see a corresponding keepalive timer > interval setting, > though I don't think this project is strictly > incomplete without one, > it's certainly close to it. The default setting (two > hours) is so much > more than just a tad too long -- having to set it > system-wide seems > obnoxious to me. Yes, I agree, although that's not part of this RFE. It's actually not too bad to set the timeout system-wide because it's still only used if the service sets the corresponding socket option. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
