Re: address pair exploration, flooding and state loss

[Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> 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".

So what happens when DCCP starts being implemented, perhaps as initially 
in user-level using the raw socket interface?

I am not comfortable assuming that the transport protocol or its 
implementation must change in order for shim6 to be able to work, 
especially when there are alternative approaches which do not require this.

An approach where the shim failure detection can work more efficiently 
when there is some optional advice from the ULP is quite different than 
requiring that the ULP code change.

   Erik