Re: address pair exploration, flooding and state loss

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 31-mei-2005, at 23:03, Erik Nordmark wrote:

> > Another way to do this would be the "ICMP bad  checksum" message  
> > that I suggested a few days ago.

> But as I responded, such an approach only makes sense if we are  
> going to modify all the protocols which run over IP to generate  
> such errors. And assuming that an implementation can do this is  
> problematic due to "raw socket" APIs which allow there to be any  
> number of IP protocols implemented unbeknown to the provider of the  
> IP and shim6 layers.

AFAIK, applications that use raw sockets for actual user traffic are  
extremely rare. (I can't think of any, not counting IP tunnels.)  
Typically, applications use UDP for "strange" protocols. So if we  
modify TCP, UDP and SCTP we should be out of the woods here. And if  
there really are applications that don't use these transports but are  
interested in recovering quickly from shim state loss, it shouldn't  
be too hard for them to implement the "icmp bad transport checksum".