Hi Wesley, El 08/03/2006, a las 16:39, Wesley Eddy escribió:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 04:16:10PM +0200, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:Others??In addition to the interface between the shim and application, it is imperative that the interface between shim and transport protocol be considered. At the time when the shim decides to failover, the transport protocol should be kicked so that it can reinitialize the state associated with estimation of various path properties (congestion window, RTT, path MTU, etc). Research has indicated that not doing this can be problematic both for the end host and the network [1].
indeed, good pointI guess the communication between the shim and transport should be bi-directional, since i guess that the shim would benefit from knowing that the connections that are using certain locator pair are working.
I am not sure if with the current failure detection mechanisms we can benefit from ULP positive feedback). I mean, what would be ULP positive feedback be useful for?
regards, marcelo
This has been discussed in TSVWG and TCPM, and is described in at least a couple of internet drafts (in the process of merging):https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/idindex.cgi? command=id_detail&id=12091 https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/idindex.cgi? command=id_detail&id=10165-Wes[1] http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?2005/CR-2005 -213838.html-- Wesley M. Eddy Verizon Federal Network Systems