Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Greg Maxwell wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 04:44:27PM -0500, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > My requirement is not for transparency or for sessions to proceed
> > > after a glitch. It's for the ability to open *new* sessions from hosts
> > > that have *not* been modified from RFC 2460 conformance. That's different,
> > > and essential.
> >
> > Ah yes, you are right. My apologies.
> 
> Alright, assuming for the moment that totally unaltered hosts must be able
> to open a new session after a glitch, is hackery an acceptible way to
> accomplish this if no pretty solution presents itself?

The kind of hackery involved in address selection by the host stack, sure.
We've always known there would be hackery there. There's no reason
that the restart must use the same address pair as the aborted session.

   Brian