IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] 793bis: dead gateway detection

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED59120232 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pG_htt88yCkd for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0C52120048 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id q20so6397572qtp.3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=mNR4J5IWqb+1dViIQPu1Oi7PC01GrJdtw4mB9xuAwRY=; b=RZ+/5CuKkCzmNDLMmVQFYU3uGqpAFjlpN7vtHFHmNVbmIYcL/at3KJPRTlW3x8iHnR P+owI/Hc4IsS4v4VD8y2NRiIxsxMn82A8nxjPCPtbzj9iv1B/6TIedcCuAZ347qAEhDl eRpirAMleXvgHwVpNKGBW7o3dKSFdimmiLQ6US6X4YU/Rh3PPoQtGI6hMM+7uZbBdj/Q sm9RcXdDNsVTBtMq1NjshCydevBfPlIHLbWYDnJuRSIdloaKFQreM5D/5PHuQvgfS1Kj yxT3ZnuayLnoUSC6qoPPji/a25pjPgWYooU4M+gnCtkC/Y99sqt/puMfYxh3SKhHILzT c3AQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=mNR4J5IWqb+1dViIQPu1Oi7PC01GrJdtw4mB9xuAwRY=; b=XG+7a2+HbznKtQbCicOZC4GBhOnBBpKttbGbhQUGHhhFyleOqChNKZjuXbSQ1RtkvB 8GswAssif69QgwyhOED2GGW8dxs/x8ot2EmgJ7Suv/8Ft9ANeyCmvTs3L/oLQkmPXhlm rTYAWfDOlt9pMUxS0W2Em8J9aZy94ROmW7KjxdfRQYeQQc4GS8bgfpIYwOFWAATeQGfP I+Mh5RwsG6tS0qYkrv+9aRhDVlE65kw0AWe8aZTPLZQVqiE4kvaTNrO8cCsnXDlSr6In 9rP87Q6nd6S+8B0CB+zc3ild9+NvyxZUZ7u8pYIUhTB1HrmBHJr1RtIlIWdJ4J5T0wPm yolQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUVNFCBVUE3kCBA5em9ZBK+se5NvBRRZTgUpzMvHjKrVlheqG5w J9usTj8/SpXcM9dRtJkQ5Mu9qDYaQ3g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyD3ws7e5FMFGnGEwZDt/BQpy2bb69vCX25jlpvyXSuoA1nZp8eX2zNtIMCeQ+XY8bBaFm+7g==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6f75:: with SMTP id u21mr9220422qtv.52.1576792891722; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.100.1.112] (rrcs-69-135-1-122.central.biz.rr.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i6sm2116400qkk.7.2019.12.19.14.01.31 for <tcpm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:31 -0800 (PST)
To: tcpm@ietf.org
References: <5D669BDA.3000506@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5D66A044.3060904@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <58f1b035-94ff-cfa8-c6c6-13d4c3cfae90@mti-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:01:30 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5D66A044.3060904@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/IGhHYUOCwES7I-DjsgHnFsa-zVY>
Subject: [tcpm] 793bis: dead gateway detection
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:01:35 -0000

Gorry asked a question below about excessive TCP retransmissions 
resulting in triggering of whatever kind of lower-layer "dead gateway" 
detection logic might be available.  This comes from RFC 1122.  I don't 
know the current state of practice, or of any RFCs amending this, so am 
very interested in any feedback from the list on whether some change 
here is needed.

On 8/28/2019 11:39 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> Section 3.8.3
> OLD:
>       pass negative advice (see [14]
>       Section 3.3.1.4) to the IP layer, to trigger dead-gateway
>       diagnosis.
> - Is this still best current practice? - If so please explain and cite 
> RFCs.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email