headers
Jürgen Herz | 1 Jul 2007 11:33

Re: v1.1 max connections per user

On 2007-07-01 01:25, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 19:11 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> 
>> I'm assuming this is per IP?
> 
> No. I'm not sure if it should. Perhaps.

If you think about it, also take NATed networks into account. So it
would need a fairly high default and should have a remark in the comment
to make admins aware.

Jürgen
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Steffen Kaiser | 2 Jul 2007 14:32
Picon

Re: v1.1 max connections per user


On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Jürgen Herz wrote:

> If you think about it, also take NATed networks into account. So it
> would need a fairly high default and should have a remark in the comment
> to make admins aware.

Yep!

A limit per IP is not enforcable in my mind. Perhaps if you can exclude 
some IPs.

Donnu, but I wouldn't enable a connection limit by default. Let the admin 
choose a correct value after "QuickStart" went well.

Bye,

--

-- 
Steffen Kaiser
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christian Balzer | 2 Jul 2007 15:22

Re: v1.1 max connections per user

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:32:11 +0200 (CEST) Steffen Kaiser
<skdovecot <at> smail.inf.fh-bonn-rhein-sieg.de> wrote:
> 
> Donnu, but I wouldn't enable a connection limit by default. Let the
> admin choose a correct value after "QuickStart" went well.
> 

Agreed.

A per IP limit that defaults to something other than UNLIMITED and
which might sneak into the system/config under the radar with 1.1
would happily break things here (all connections come from the 
proxy).
A per user (login id) one might still affect things in an unexpected
manner if uncaught in the upgrade, but at least w/o a such a totally
devastating effect as with a per IP one.

My 2 yen,

Christian
--

-- 
Christian Balzer        Network/Systems Engineer                NOC
chibi <at> gol.com   	Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Network Services
http://www.gol.com/
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane