RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives

From: Paul Jakma (paulj at domain itg.ie)
Date: Tue 11 Jul 2000 - 15:02:16 IST

• Next message: Scott Wunsch: "Re: [ILUG] apache documentroot ?"
• Previous message: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives"
• In reply to: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives"
• Next in thread: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives"
• Reply: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Kenn Humborg wrote:

> I'd go for 10810 to allow for a little more leeway.
>

isn't this a slight risk on high load servers? eg, you'll run out of ports
a lot quicker with longer timeouts.

> Later,
> Kenn
>
>
>

• Next message: Scott Wunsch: "Re: [ILUG] apache documentroot ?"
• Previous message: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives"
• In reply to: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives"
• Next in thread: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives"
• Reply: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] IPmasq and TCP keepalives"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:50 GMT