Re: Second shim

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Erik Nordmark wrote:
...
> So while the application didn't specify it, and a "shim" or some new 
> connect-by-name API can cycle through, it still will be a bit 
> inefficient if you let TCP try things (for a single <source, dest>) and 
> timing out before trying the next one.

Yes, but quite tolerable for some applications (Lotus Notes seems to have
done something very much like this for years, for example, and it's
just fine for background replication).

I do wonder whether this isn't a distraction right now, though. It should
certainly be orthogonal to the IP layer shim.

   Brian