Re: Another dlsw question

From: Atif Awan (atifawan@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jan 22 2001 - 21:01:02 GMT-3

Next message: Hebert, Cory J (cory.hebert@xxxxxxxx): "Catalyst Study"
Previous message: frank wells: "RE: IP allocation matrix question?"
Maybe in reply to: BUI, TIN T (SBCSI): "Another dlsw question"
Next in thread: Tracy Blackmore: "RE: Another dlsw question"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

<html><P>I think using the keepalive 0 parameter will do it. You have to use it
on both the peers; not on one end.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>>From: "Robert DeVito" <ROBERTDEVITO@HOTMAIL.COM></P>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: "Robert DeVito" <ROBERTDEVITO@HOTMAIL.COM>
<DIV></DIV>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Another dlsw question
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:23:56
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>How do you keep the DLSW state "connect" if the physical connect
ion between
<DIV></DIV>>the two peers are disconnected??
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Thank you,
<DIV></DIV>>Robert
<DIV></DIV>>

Next message: Hebert, Cory J (cory.hebert@xxxxxxxx): "Catalyst Study"
Previous message: frank wells: "RE: IP allocation matrix question?"
Maybe in reply to: BUI, TIN T (SBCSI): "Another dlsw question"
Next in thread: Tracy Blackmore: "RE: Another dlsw question"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:39 GMT-3