[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120119.173713.2180573303386307668.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:37:13 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: equinox@...c24.net
Cc: hagen@...u.net, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
hans.schillstrom@...csson.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC Hanging clean-up of a namespace
From: David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:47:18 +0100
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:40:53PM +0100, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
>> * Eric W. Biederman | 2012-01-19 13:24:13 [-0800]:
>>
>> >This thread is a fascinating disconnect from reality all of the way
>> >around.
>> >
>> >- inet_twsk_purge already implements throwing out of timewait sockets
>> > when a network namespaces is being cleaned up. So the RFC is nonsense.
>>
>> This is how it is implemented, not how it should be. TIME_WAIT is not the
>> problem, it is there to keep the stack from sending wrong RST messages. Maybe
>> the 2*MSL could be fixed by a more accurate 2*RTT.
>
> I may have made that argument hidden behind a joke, but please refer to
> the development of RFC 793's bootup "quiet time". The reason no one
> sticks to this quiet time is that TCP timestamps have obsoleted it by
> providing a better frame of reference. Refer to RFC 1323 Appendix B
> "DUPLICATES FROM EARLIER CONNECTION INCARNATIONS".
I recommend you go and see what percentage of TCP connections actually
have timestamps enabled, you might be surprised. I believe there are
some good up to date figures in the google TCP papers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists