Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A vendor is requesting to allow persistent tcp (not port 80) connection between a server in the DMZ and the internal network. I don't have much experience with this setting. Can anyone shed some light on disadvantages of allowing persistent connection? Guidance is much apprciated.

share|improve this question

I would ask this question to the vendor to see why they want it, and have the explain it to make sure you know what they are talking about. I am not quite sure, but it sounds like they mean enabling the optional keep alive TCP feature. Keep-Alive can serve a couple of purposes that I can think of right now:

  • Identify a connection that has gone dead and make sure it gets closed in a timely fashion and that the application knows it is gone. This is probably the reason they want it.
  • Keep a session open as long as the other end responded to the probes. This can save a little overhead because you don't have has many session opens and closes (Hand-Shake and FIN). More overhead can be saved if the protocol on top has a fair amount of open close work to do as well.

This is a debated topic, as mentioned in TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1, many feel keep alive should be handled by the application layer, not the transport layer.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.