[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Heartbeats (was RE: keepalives)

To: Tim Jenkins <tjenkins@TimeStep.com>
Subject: Re: Heartbeats (was RE: keepalives)
From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:33:29 -0500 (EST)
cc: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <319A1C5F94C8D11192DE00805FBBADDFFD59B4@exchange>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Tim Jenkins wrote:
> 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...

Unfortunately, the term "keep-alive" is already well established in this
connection in the TCP/IP world.  (See, for example, section 4.2.3.6 of
RFC 1122.)

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry@spsystems.net
                                                     (henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

References:

Heartbeats (was RE: keepalives)

From: Tim Jenkins <tjenkins@TimeStep.com>

Prev by Date: RE: IPSec SA DELETE in "dangling" implementation
Next by Date: Re: IPSec SA DELETE in "dangling" implementation
Prev by thread: Heartbeats (was RE: keepalives)
Next by thread: Re: Heartbeats (was RE: keepalives)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread