[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Heartbeats (was RE: keepalives)
Just a nit, but if we really mean heartbeat, can we call it that?
A keep-alive to me is something that defeats the peer's inactivity time-out
detection mechanism, while a heartbeat is something that helps detect the
health of the peer. And a heartbeat shouldn't defeat inactivity detection,
either.
---
Tim Jenkins TimeStep Corporation
tjenkins@timestep.com http://www.timestep.com
(613) 599-3610 x4304 Fax: (613) 599-3617
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Vilhuber [mailto:vilhuber@cisco.com]
> Sent: December 1, 1999 8:55 PM
> To: Dan Harkins
> Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: keepalives (was Re: IPSec SA DELETE in "dangling"
> implementation)
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Dan Harkins wrote:
> > I think a nice generic keep alive function would be more useful to
> > implement. Why doesn't someone write a draft on this subject?
> >
> I'm sort of working myself up to it, i.e. we're still
> wondering internally
> what's best.
>
> Problem I see is that there are several different scenarios
> where different
> types of keepalives will be necessary (i.e. a dial-up
> scenario has different
> requirements than a straight ethernet scenario; ethernet
> scenario will be
> more efficient and optimizable, but dial-up is not). Once I
> get something
> written up, I'll post it to the list, but I have my doubts
> that we'll come up
> with a single sanctioned mechanism. There'll likely be at
> least two. It's
> possible we can come up with one generic enough to be used in
> both cases, but
> I doubt it (I'm a pessimist).
>
> jan
> --
> Jan Vilhuber
> vilhuber@cisco.com
> Cisco Systems, San Jose
> (408) 527-0847
>
>
Follow-Ups: