On 19 July 2011 21:42, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
Sending at that rate will result in a disconnected socket for most of the
networks I've seen. There are still an exorbitant number of routers,
On Jul 26, 2011, at 16:57, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 19 July 2011 21:42, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
Sending at that rate will result in a disconnected socket for most of the
networks I've seen.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
I've never encountered a network that'll disconnect with 10-15-minute
keepalives; there may be some, but I doubt most.
A few weeks ago I was completely with you. But I just moved into an
office where idle connections
On Jul 20, 2011, at 15:05, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
If a server is sending (in)frequent keepalives, and the client knows it
should have them (more) less, then this protocol allows for that to be
opted-in on
On 7/19/11 7:42 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net mailto:linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
Sending at that rate will result in a disconnected socket for most
of the networks I've seen. There are still an exorbitant
On Jul 19, 2011, at 19:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
Sending at that rate will result in a disconnected socket for most of the
networks I've seen. There are still an exorbitant number of routers,
proxies,
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
If a server is sending (in)frequent keepalives, and the client knows it
should have them (more) less, then this protocol allows for that to be
opted-in on a per-connection basis.
Both servers and clients
On Tue Jul 19 21:19:15 2011, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Whitespace Keepalive Negotiation
FWIW, this one seems sensible for the XSF to adopt.
I'd like to make some observations:
1) I think the negotiation should be
Thanks for the time Dave. I'm going to check out the API.
We will definitely be using your software. The Gears software sounds
great. Let me know what you can sell the IP30 for. We will be low quantity
at the outset. An order of 5 would be likely.
Charlie Youakim
Partner
cell:
My apologies. Wrong Dave!
Charlie Youakim
Partner
cell: 651-343-4692
fax: 888-804-1783
web: www.passportparking.com
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Charles Youakim
charlie.youa...@passportparking.com wrote:
Thanks for the time Dave. I'm going to check out the API.
We will
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Whitespace Keepalive Negotiation
Abstract: This specification defines a method for negotiating how to send
keepalives in XMPP.
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/keepalive.html
The XMPP Council will decide at its
On 07/19/2011 10:19 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Whitespace Keepalive Negotiation
Abstract: This specification defines a method for negotiating how to send
keepalives in XMPP.
URL:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.orgwrote:
Whitespace are very small things
It doesn't matter how small the things are, if a single packet causes a
battery-powered device to wake up WiFi and drain battery for a while before
it goes back into a power saving
On Tuesday, July 19, 2011 05:02:30 PM Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Yann Leboulanger
aste...@lagaule.orgwrote:
Whitespace are very small things
It doesn't matter how small the things are, if a single packet causes a
battery-powered device to wake up WiFi and drain
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Justin Karneges
justin-keyword-jabber.093...@affinix.com wrote:
Whitespace keepalives serve two purposes:
1) Keep connections from being killed by routers.
Client-originated keepalives normally deal with this, so negotiation isn't
needed here--just send
On Jul 19, 2011, at 18:55 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Justin Karneges
justin-keyword-jabber.093...@affinix.com wrote:
Whitespace keepalives serve two purposes:
1) Keep connections from being killed by routers.
Client-originated keepalives normally deal with
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
Sending at that rate will result in a disconnected socket for most of the
networks I've seen. There are still an exorbitant number of routers,
proxies, firewalls, and load balancers deployed and configured
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 19:13 -0600, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
This is great for desktops, but less than ideal for mobile.
Perhaps a generic please apply resource policy $foo-spec could be
thougt up? So you could tell the server that you're on a constrained
link and have it activate various
Hi,
Following are the thoughts:
Each side can send its own keep-alive whitespace packet intelligently
considering the traffic and the reqmt to keep persistent connections.
Devices specifically should intelligently see the n/w behind which they are
and keep on calibrating the keep alive
19 matches
Mail list logo
