Re: soft state (was Re: shim6 and bit errors in data packet headers

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi,

Erik Nordmark wrote:
> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>
> > right, good point.
> > but in the three way reachability test that is outlined in the faildet 
> > draft, this exchange could be good for both purposes, right?
>
>
> What's outlined in the draft isn't a 3-way exchange but more like two 
> 2-way exchanges. It could probably be extended to "bind" things 
> together, but the details need to be worked out.
>
> > well, i guess that my perception is that ULP feedback is not so 
> > common, and that it will be common to fall back in reachability test 
> > to verify that the path is working...
> > Does current TCP usually implement this positive feedback for avoiding 
> > NUD?
>
>
> I know Solaris has done this since Solaris 8, but I don't know the 
> status of other implementations.

Linux does positive feedback using TCP, but the last-hop router isn't an
endpoint for the TCP connection, so it keeps doing NUD to the
host, even though the host doesn't send NS's to it....

Greg