On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:32:28 +0100 (CET) Daniel Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Patrick McManus wrote: > >> the remedies are backwards looking (flush caches, close connections >> etc).. so the phrasing about the hash was probably too lazy, but >> perhaps the basic idea has merit? > >We can certainly use a hash to figure out that we're dealing with a >"yo-yo interface", but what to do with that information is the tricky >part. > >I'm currently thinking of a few different routes of exploration: > >1. check the routing table (updates) to better figure out when an >adapter is removed but doesn't affect the routing as then it shouldn't >need to cause a network change. Then it would also have to not signal >a network change on a new adapter until it gets routing added to it. I >don't really know what the Teredo adapters get in terms of routing by >default - and especially not for these yo-yo setups. > >2. check data counters for the particular adapter so an unused adapter >can be ignored when removed. This will obvsiously not affect new >adapters so it'll only address half the problem. > >3. Use of a hash to store added and removed adapters and keep them >around for N minutes (I'm thinking 300 seconds to start with). If an >adapter is added/removed and its name is already in the hash, it's a >yo-yo and we ignore it. It is a bit harsh and risky but... We could >potentially work on a scheme where the N value changes over time to >adapt. > >4. Short-term and the most abrupt: disable (behind a pref) the use of >NotifyIpInterfaceChange. It makes Firefox go back to the old >NotifyAddrChange() method which doesn't have this problem - mostly >because it doesn't support IPv6. Incidentally, Chrome only uses >NotifyAddrChange to detect network changes. > Should all network applications behave in this manner, detecting and internally adjusting to network modification? Would this not lead to myriad implementations and redundancies? Is it in fact the domain of network *applications* to do this? Isn't this a systems function that should be left to the system itself? I seem to remember another out-of-scope foray where FF was using built-in dns server addresses behind the user's back a while ago, and *bypassing* the specific servers set by the administrator. Is that still happening too? Why is FF going here? Why does it *need* to? Do you see a problem not being addressed by the system, are frustrated that your efforts to help change it there are not being addressed, and thus are creating these homegrown workarounds? Why is this even an issue? Why does it actually matter which interface you are communicating through? This kind of stuff is out-of-authorized-and-expected-scope for a user program, and frankly is more than a little creepy. I know others will share this concern if/when they are aware of it. -- Regards, Christopher _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
