>So, if backlog is a threshold for communicating to clients, then I >think RST is the right choice as it communicates server state >unambiguously.
I disagree; RST does not communicate server state unambiguously. RST is used in response to an erroneous packet on a synchronized connection, in response to a packet to a connection that doesn't exist (e.g. SYN to a closed port), or in response to an ACK that acknowledges something that hasn't been sent. None of these applies to this situation. Dropping the ACK and allowing the TCP backoff to retry the connection is exactly the right behavior when there is one server supplying the service, because the retries are subject to exponential backoffs. Please don't break the normal case for the load-balanced case. Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
