Re: Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>]

<inline>
Tom Petch

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Cc: "shim6" <shim6@psg.com>; "Bernard Aboba" <aboba@internaut.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection


> On 31-okt-2005, at 7:04, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 
> > I am not clear that the "multi-homing protocol" necessarily has the  
> > right
> > information to do testing and failure detection correctly.
> 
> Since the multihoming / shim layer is the only one that is equipped  
> to take action to repair such failures I don't see how this could  
> work elsewhere. (There are some corner cases such as SCTP or  
> applications that can repair broken connectivity in some cases.)
> 
> > For example, it does not make sense to diagnose a "connectivity  
> > problem"
> > on a time scale less than RTO.  Yet only the tranport layer typically
> > possesses the RTO estimate.
> 
> RTO == ? RT must be "roundtrip" but the O?
> 

Aliter, TO must be Time Out but the R?  Response, Reply, Request?

<snip>