[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1349666257.2707.6.camel@cr0>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:17:37 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to specifiy
the time of TIME-WAIT
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 08:09 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> No, its not very friendly, but the people using this are violating the RFC,
> which isn't very friendly. :)
Could you be more specific? In RFC 793, AFAIK, it is allowed to be
changed:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793
" To be sure that a TCP does not create a segment that carries a
sequence number which may be duplicated by an old segment remaining in
the network, the TCP must keep quiet for a maximum segment lifetime
(MSL) before assigning any sequence numbers upon starting up or
recovering from a crash in which memory of sequence numbers in use was
lost. For this specification the MSL is taken to be 2 minutes. This
is an engineering choice, and may be changed if experience indicates
it is desirable to do so."
or I must still be missing something here... :)
--
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