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

[Pierre Baume <pierre@baume.org>]

Dear all,

  RTO = Retransmission Timeout

http://www.google.com/search?q=Retransmission+Timeout+RTO

Pierre.


On 10/31/05, Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> <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>
>
>
>