[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: failure detection
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
FWIW, TCP for instance already provide some form of such signaling
see Appendix E.1 of RFC 2461 Of course other ULP don't provide any
kind of feedback.
So i guess it would be a better not to fully rely on ULP feedback,
but otoh not using the information that some ULP provide seems
suboptimal to me.
1. I said "extra signaling"
2. Note the title of appendix E: "IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES" and
describes a possible optimisation that can be made if ULP's can be
modified - it's wholly at the implementation's discretion.
Exploring stuff like path-reachability probing or implementation
optimisations via shim<->ULP signalling (which ULP could be IP quite
likely btw, not TCP - implementations possibly will have /two/ layers
to pass hints through) is fine, but do it as an appendix or an
informational document or wait for implementors to experiment.
The path-probing is, imho, mostly a complete waste of time. But an
implementation can go wild if it wants.
The potentials of TCP<->Shim signaling are interesting I'll admit.
However, again it's an implementation detail (and only reason its
being discussed is cause of the crazy path-probing stuff).
I note from the archives that I'm not the first person to have
cautioned against going down the path-probing route (Joe Abley too).
Paul Jakma email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion