Hi Rick, From: Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22] TCP: Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable (take 2) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:16:43 -0700
> OBATA Noboru wrote: > > What about another option to let TCP have a notification? > > > > Can it be a solution if it is standardized? > > It would at best be a partial solution which would only work when the > link failover/whatnot happened on the same system/node as the TCP > endpoint. Then it can be some sort of call-back to TCP or the like. I understood that the IETF document pointed by John has such a limitation. > If this failover is out in the middle of the cloud the only way to get a > notification back to TCP would be by sending it a packet of some sort > and I don't see that happening. Agreed. I learned that, in practice, the route monitoring by probe packets (ICMP or others) is used to detect a failure along the route to an important host. This monitoring apparently doesn't scale and so its use is limited to the route to an important host, but practices show that it is quite effective in monitoring. I am now wondering about a TCP notification mechanism combined with the route monitoring. Regards, -- OBATA Noboru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
