Re: Protocol for TCP heartbeats?

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Fri, 16 July 2010 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF363A6895 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.116
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.483, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LGgbNOn7SWsZ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355B43A67A4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (kalyani.aox.org [79.140.39.164]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7231EFA000A; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:35:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.3) with esmtpa id 1279258552-49445-49444/8/20; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:35:52 +0200
Message-Id: <WLSLn34WfnhdBX2AHv5RMg.md5@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:36:40 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Protocol for TCP heartbeats?
Organization: http://arnt.gulbrandsen.priv.no
References: <4C24EB85.6080703@250bpm.com> <4C24F1DA.3080702@isi.edu> <4C24F62F.8050306@250bpm.com> <AANLkTindOlo4iseYxJMCQCjIjy3707xbJcQqF2Jd_ECR@mail.gmail.com> <4C26E847.7050100@250bpm.com> <4C27856B.50604@bogus.com> <4C28A787.2040706@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4C28AE2B.8030503@250bpm.com> <20100629002829.GD5985@zod.isi.edu> <4C3DF710.8020100@250bpm.com> <20100714181301.GA52778@zod.isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20100714181301.GA52778@zod.isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:35:50 -0000

Ted Faber writes:
> If an application needs a heartbeat, it almost always needs to be an 
> application to application (layer 7 to layer 7) heartbeat.
>
> ...
>
> My point is that if you need that layer 7 heartbeat, the layer 4 (TCP) 
> one doesn't help much. I can't think of an application that needs the 
> TCP heartbeat and not the application heartbeat.

I can think of several whose L7 heartbeat needs TCP data in order to 
avoid false alarms.

It's really difficult to write an L7 heartbeat which works well with 
fast connections (ie. detects death soon after it occurs), also works 
with slow connections (ie. makes few false alarms), and makes no use of 
TCP data.

Arnt