Re: statement regarding keepalives

Joe Touch <> Fri, 20 July 2018 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7661311EA; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 07:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IJSvTp8DuDYn; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40E901310CB; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 07:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=guPll7hjdcP+HOGHsk3/1nnftV0LD1pUKHxp6UET7IE=; b=eBx3Q2+6X9Y3+XzFpEpqRywTh 0bwyNdRjpNZMHwduIK1R715BCmBh8TsVlWi/ONPWNRa8+3tBdUMhtCj6X2Yus8eSPSzas0NCjS0Xu fdF57VWR9jao8FvVFft9qSDedCFCrB0kHw6n2ZKdxpSpgTqSMNUDRLZ2k9VZLOXQKHADculaIoZSc uQtBgwqz2dMF4EWOLDG2knTNqD5p13qUXUS9gnCMNo3rY1eGqTgM4cPrZyjWQEkWmID3c13gsptiI G0aja9DWcqpZvSPAolsnD+CELx2PhMSGmX3mtbZPCyh/Wtg3TXOWv8/il+5pnvBsSKCGEJSZMxlIh Rd2cRW1+g==;
Received: from ([]:49445 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <>) id 1fgWh5-001Q9S-QO; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:47:44 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1B8744E2-F28B-4E5B-847F-74FDA9261D2A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Subject: Re: statement regarding keepalives
From: Joe Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 07:47:57 -0700
Cc: Kent Watsen <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Transport and Services Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 14:48:05 -0000

> On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <> wrote:
> So I'd like to see in the text that we recommend to do it as "high up" in the stack as possible, but still don't put off people turning on TCP keepalives "because the IETF doesn't recommend that", and thus they do nothing at all and the problem just persists.

Agreed. Further, I don’t see the problem with having keepalives at all levels of the stack - at lower levels, they can be suppressed as long as higher levels are performing that function, but it’s still always useful to have them on at lower levels as a “backup”.

So I would hesitate to say “do this at the highest level”. My advice would be “do this at ALL levels that benefit, and be sure to suppress independent keepalives at a given level if there is activity at higher levels that suffices”.