Re: about R1bis

[Pierre Baume <pierre@baume.org>]

Hi Marcelo,

On 11/10/05, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
[...]

> 2 - Do we want that the failure detection probes trigger a context
> recovery mechanisms i.e. R1bis?
>
> In the considered scenario, when the initial path between the ulids is
> working fine, the transmission of probes to verify that the current
> path is working may result in triggering the context recovery
> mechanisms i.e. the transmission of a R1bis packet. Such behaviour may
> not be the optimum for dealing with the case of the server that wants
> to discard the clients contexts, in order to let the clients to handle
> fault tolernace (the scenario suggested by Iljitsch in the ams
> meeting). A possibility for dealing with this would be that probes that
> verify that the current path is working do not contain context specific
> information (as oposed to probes used for exploring the alternative
> paths, that in order to be used for flooding prevention must carry
> context specific information). I know that this would imply a change in
> the failure detection protocol in Jari's draft, but maybe it would be
> worth to consider this issue.
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
> PS: agree that interaction with context confusion mechanisms needs to
> be be clearly understood in order to get the full picture about this
> R1bis thing
[...]

  Maybe it would help to have a message for servers to indicate that
they wish to go quiet and drop the context. This could also interrupt
probing.

Pierre.