[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Heartbeats (was RE: keepalives)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Spencer [mailto:henry@spsystems.net]
> Sent: December 2, 1999 12:33 PM
> To: Tim Jenkins
> Cc: Jan Vilhuber; ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: Heartbeats (was RE: keepalives)
>
>
> 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.)
Okay, so we perpetuate a confusing term.
What should we call a keep-alive as I've defined above? Or does no one care?