IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] MSL 120sec still a good value?

tuexen@fh-muenster.de Wed, 09 November 2022 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF25C14F72F for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 07:39:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y8hf76VhR89Q for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 07:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56389C1522D2 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 07:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:c445:b669:d07d:bccd]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by drew.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71C307174AE8D for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 16:39:08 +0100 (CET)
From: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E35C57D2-798C-4806-B1FA-8EE0F52832C2"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.200.110.1.12\))
Message-Id: <2B33D130-81A8-4CB5-8CA1-E0D932906DCA@fh-muenster.de>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 15:39:06 +0000
To: tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.200.110.1.12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/BogO5S8ZQZjPu3O6rmD__oyLrG8>
Subject: [tcpm] MSL 120sec still a good value?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 15:39:24 -0000

Dear all,

quick question for TCP implementers:
TCP end points stay in TIMEWAIT for 2 MSL and RFC 9293 says MSL is 120 sec.
Is this still a good value anymore? Wouldn't it make sense to use the maximum
round trip time observed on the connection or some multiple of it?
Any information how implementations do it right now appreciated.

Best regards
Michael

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status