Re: quick failover in SCTP

[Michael Tüxen <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 17, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:

> Hi folks,
> This is a follow-up from the Maastricht meeting. 
> Preethi and I are proposing quick failover algorithm in SCTP and gave a presentation about this one.
> 
> In my feeling, the community seems to be positive in enhancing the SCTP standard to some extent to address this issue.
> Also, in my understanding, Michael and Randy suggested that minor updates in the current spec can have the similar effects as the PF approach can do.
> So,  we're going to start with investigating the alternatives for PF approach and would like to know about the detail of the suggestion.
> If Michael and Randy could give us some info about this, we would be grateful very much.
Sure.
One point is that RFC 4960 does not specify what to do when all paths
are INACTIVE. If that happens, the association is called dormant.
I think it should be clarified that you still send HB to get a path
to ACTIVE again until the association finally fails. This could be
handled as an errata, I think.

Now assume that handling of the dormant state.  If I understand PF correctly,
you could simply set Path.Max.Retrans to 0 to get the same behavior on the
wire as when using PF, or am I missing something? The only difference I see,
are the path state change notification sent locally to the user.

But maybe I have overlooked something...

Best regards
Michael
> Also, if someone who has comments or feedbacks for this, please let us know.
> 
> Thank you so much.
> --
> Yoshifumi Nishida
> [e-mail]  
> 
> 
>