Hi Abhijan, Carsten, (Good point, and great measurement paper!)
Yes, this is indeed bad 'news', and a problem. I agree with Abhijan that a detailed analysis on using TCP Fast Open in this context, versus long connections aided by (realistic) keep-alive mechanisms, is definitely needed. Thanks! Carles > On 22 June 2016 at 14:39:52, Abhijan Bhattacharyya > ([email protected]) wrote: > That is understood. The point is that, there is an element of doubt > regarding whether the implementations in reality abide by the given time > interval or silently times out without the knowledge of the end-points. > There is no doubt at all :-/ > > http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2010/papers/p260.pdf > > Figure 7, Section 4.2: > > "More than half the devices fail to meet the IETF recommended timeout of > 124 minâ > > This study is a few years old, but I would be surprised if the situation > has become much better. > > (Are there newer studies of this type?) > > GrüÃe, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
