[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?