Re: [NAILS REQUESTED PREVIEW]: Re: SCTP failover

From: Janardhan Iyengar <iyengar@mail.eecis.udel.edu>
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 16:59:13 EST

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) > > Switching over to an alternate on an FR may give you really good failover,
> > but will likely hurt performance when there's no failure (the common
> > case). Optimizing for the common case makes sense.
>
> Actually, if a failure occurs, you will not be able to fast rtx because
> the ack clock will be lost. So switching to an alternate on an FR won't
> even improve failover time.

Yeah, good point. In fact, turning that reasoning around: when an FR
does occur, since an ack clock exists, the ack clock demonstrates that
there is no failure!

To clarify, an FR occurs only when there are acks coming back; meaning
data is getting through and so are acks. Therefore, failure couldn't have
happened if an FR happens!

regards,
jana

---------------------------------------------------------------
Janardhan R. Iyengar http://www.cis.udel.edu/~iyengar
Protocol Engineering Lab -- CIS -- University Of Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Feb 11 17:11:18 2005