[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Jari Arkko" <email@example.com>
Cc: "shim6" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Bernard Aboba" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection
> On 31-okt-2005, at 7:04, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > I am not clear that the "multi-homing protocol" necessarily has the
> > right
> > information to do testing and failure detection correctly.
> Since the multihoming / shim layer is the only one that is equipped
> to take action to repair such failures I don't see how this could
> work elsewhere. (There are some corner cases such as SCTP or
> applications that can repair broken connectivity in some cases.)
> > For example, it does not make sense to diagnose a "connectivity
> > problem"
> > on a time scale less than RTO. Yet only the tranport layer typically
> > possesses the RTO estimate.
> RTO == ? RT must be "roundtrip" but the O?
Aliter, TO must be Time Out but the R? Response, Reply, Request?