On Sun Jul 2 02:02:03 2006, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
Ah, I misunderstood what your negative was about. I thought you
were saying that the ACKs don't make it back. :)
Of course, arbitrary destruction of established TCP connections by a
man in the middle is, arguably, also breaking TCP.
On Jun 28, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:59:54 -0600
From: Joe Hildebrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Jabber software development list <jdev@jabber.org>
To: Jabber software development list <jdev@jabber.org>
Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?
On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:09 AM, Bruce Campbell wrote:
Well, not really. You'll get a TCP ack back, which should be
enough to keep the lights on.
Not if you are dealing with inspection-type firewalls which
don't really treat a TCP ACK as a data packet.
If firewalls did this, TCP would *break* for all applications.
Can you please give a concrete example of a firewall that has
this property?
Not a firewall appliance, but 'interesting' configurations with
ISPs seeking to keep their dial-up lines/wavelan channels free
(timers on their end were only reset on certain types of packets,
which did not include tcp acks).
I find it notable that the same people who're ensuring that a live
connection has to transfer data to stay alive tend to be the same
people who charge for transfer instead of time.
Of course, they're severing my running connections, thus incurring
additional data transfer, which they then charge for, purely for
sound technical reasons, and not to fleece me for every penny I have.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
