Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!AHWAHNEE.STANFORD.EDU!dcrocker
From: dcrocker@AHWAHNEE.STANFORD.EDU (Dave Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: SO_KEEPALIVE considered harmful?
Message-ID: <8906012254.AA23748@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 26 May 89 13:28:24 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 9

Phil,

As a test-of-concept:  I assume that you have no objection to a TCP
implementation's being able to do keepalives, under the control of the
application, where both the fact of keepalives AND their periodicity
can be specified; and the effect of a timeout is a signal to the
application, not an abort?

Dave