Re: failure detection

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

El 17/08/2005, a las 21:42, Paul Jakma escribió:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>
> > I guess that the only one that can identify this problem is the ULP 
> > itself.
> >
> > So i guess we have the following situation:
> > - The shim will only be able to detect (by itself, without additional 
> > information) failures when packets stop flowing
>
> How do you know if packets should or should not be flowing? What if 
> it's a very quiet protocol? :)

There are two possibilities to deal with this, as explained in Ilijtsch 
draft

> > well, imho the shim needs only to define a default failure mode. I 
> > mean, it is clear that different apps have different perception of 
> > what a failure may be, but, since the shim is a generic layer, we 
> > need to provide a generic definition of what a failure is. Clearly, i 
> > guess it would be very useful to allow ULPs to provide information to 
> > the shim about when they consider that a failure has occurred.
>
> Or define a very simple link^Wpath-state control protocol for shim6.

not sure what you mean by this...

regards, marcelo


> You could use it to monitor path-state to locators you're interested 
> in.
>
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
> Fortune:
> Odets, where is thy sting?
> 		-- George S. Kaufman