[This message was posted by Chirag Patel of Tradeweb LLC <[email protected]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/5262ccf2 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
I agree with Paul. In my experience with Appia, the acceptor does not respond back to the second initiator but simply disconnects it. > Hi Russ, > > The following is from the FIX.4.4 spec > (http://fixprotocol.org/specifications/FIX.4.4, volume 2, page 29): > > "If during a Logon one receives a second connection attempt while a > valid FIX session is already underway for that same SenderCompID, it is > recommended that the session acceptor immediately terminate the second > connection attempt and not send a Logout message. Sending a Logout > message runs the risk of interfering with and possibly adversely > affecting the current active FIX connection. For example, in some FIX > system implementations, sending a Logout message might consume a > sequence number that would cause an out of sequence condition for the > established FIX session." > > - Paul > > > Hi All, > > > > I'm curious as to the correct way a FIX engine should respond to the > > receipt of a logon from a peer that collides with a session that is > > already active from a different peer - should the engine send a > > response message (with a default sequence number) or should the engine > > simply disconnect with no response to the offending client? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Russ [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]]
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.
