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

From: Brian F. G. Bidulock <bidulock@openss7.org>
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 17:28:54 EST

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) Janardhan,

Except in the CMT case. Success on a good path detects failure on a bad path.

--brian

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Janardhan Iyengar wrote:

>
> > > 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

Received on Fri Feb 11 17:35:13 2005