Re: IRIX and FIN_WAIT_2 timeouts

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to post lingering_close() to c.p.tcp-ip and see what comments
> Gurus have.  A Sun TCP/IP guy didn't see anything wrong with the
> implementation; I am sending it to the SGI guy for comments when I clear
> my head.
> 
> However, more people would argue that _not_ having the timeout is a bug
> and a problem with the standard.  In fact, the Sun guy I talked to
> refused to call the fact that SunOS 4.x didn't have a timeout anything
> other than a bug.
> 

I agree that a timeout for FIN_WAIT_2 is, in hind-sight, a good
idea. But the fact is that it's NOT part of the standard and although
many would say it is a good thing, they would also agree that
having one violates it.

But having the functionality of Apache semi-depend on a fix to the
standard that no one needs to do, well... I just don't know.

I'm pouring over the Rago and Stevens books trying to figure out
what may be going on, but with no luck. I just wish there was some
way for Apache to work _with_ 100% compliant (well...) stacks.
Right now, for those that don't have a timeout for FIN_WAIT_2, there
only alternative is NO_LINGCLOSE, and we tell people that in doing
that they will have major problems with persistant connections,
pipelining, etc and that it's wrong-wrong-wrong... Kinda puts people
in a tight spot.
-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"