[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: failure detection

To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Subject: Re: failure detection
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:41:45 +0200
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, shim6 <shim6@psg.com>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0508141523170.7023@sheen.jakma.org>
References: <8622E6A4-B0D7-4C9B-B184-8EB2A7C2738E@muada.com> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0508141523170.7023@sheen.jakma.org>


El 14/08/2005, a las 16:49, Paul Jakma escribió:

(and again, I hope this WG will disabuse itself of the notion that extra signals /down/ from transports to shim6 can even be considered at this early stage in shim6's life).

FWIW, TCP for instance already provide some form of such signaling see Appendix E.1 of RFC 2461 Of course other ULP don't provide any kind of feedback.

So i guess it would be a better not to fully rely on ULP feedback, but otoh not using the information that some ULP provide seems suboptimal to me.

Regards, marcelo

regards,
--
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
You will be married within a year, and divorced within two.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: failure detection
  - From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>

References:
- failure detection
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- Re: failure detection
  - From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>

Prev by Date: Re: about reachability detection draft
Next by Date: Re: shim-aware transports
Previous by thread: Re: failure detection
Next by thread: Re: failure detection
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread