Re: [Tsvwg] Rethinking Karn's algorithm

Spencer Dawkins <spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com> Mon, 31 March 2003 14:22 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07092 for <tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:22:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VEjJW07450 for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:45:19 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VEj4O07443; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:45:04 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VEimO07402 for <tsvwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:44:48 -0500
Received: from web10903.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA07084 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20030331142325.76284.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [12.237.229.250] by web10903.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:23:25 PST
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:23:25 -0800
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Rethinking Karn's algorithm
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030331160237.02607f48@mailhost.eed.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

Hi, Reiner,

Yeah, exactly - what I'm talking about is a more completely
specified variant of this. For instance, we might (this is an
observation, not a suggestion) recommend that host
implementations resend a packet, but not router implementations
(as your posting notes, the recommendation in LINK allows both,
but doesn't prefer one or the other).

Spencer

--- Reiner Ludwig <Reiner.Ludwig@eed.ericsson.se> wrote:
> At 15:55 31.03.2003, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> >I believe that post-IETF 56, what's actually on the table in
> >TRIGTRAN is end-systems resending one "last packet" at
> link-up
> >time, not routers sending triggers.
> 
> Fine. But don't we have exactly that already in section 8.2
> ("Recovery from 
> Subnetwork Outages") of draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-13.txt
> which is a 
> soon-to-be-BCP-RFC:
> 
>     "[...]
>     It is therefore highly desirable that a subnetwork subject
> to outages
>     not silently discard packets during an outage. Ideally, it
> should
>     define an interface to the next higher layer (i.e., IP)
> that allows
>     it to refuse packets during an outage, and to
> automatically ask IP
>     for new packets when it is again able to deliver them. If
> it cannot
>     do this, then the subnetwork should hold onto at least
> some of the
>     packets it accepts during an outage and attempt to deliver
> them when
>     the subnetwork comes back up. When packets are discarded,
> IP should
>     be notified so that the appropriate ICMP messages can be
> sent.
> 
>     Note that it is *not* necessary to completely avoid
> dropping packets
>     during an outage. The purpose of holding onto a packet
> during an
>     outage, either in the subnetwork or at the IP layer, is so
> that its
>     eventual delivery will implicitly notify TCP that the
> subnetwork is
>     again operational. [...]"
> 
> And this works for both, hosts and routers.
> 
> ///Reiner 
> 

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg