On 4/23/2015 10:39 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: ... >>>> I repeat: Probe success tells you only that. Probe loss tells you only >>>> that. ... >> If the probe makes it, it makes it. >> >> If the probe "would have failed" on another path, you'll either see that >> over several probes or not. > > Only if you craft your probes in such a way that they eventually test > all paths in a multipath arrangement.
I need to do no such thing. I only care about what happens as it happens. If the path changes and it affects loss, then I react to loss. If the path doesn't change and the loss changes, I react to loss. There's nothing that requires that any network path "test all paths" in a multipath system. ,,, >> If you do, you have what is isomorphic to a >> lossy link, > > It would actually be much worse than a lossy link, because some > traffic would receive good service while other traffic would be > dropped completely. If the loss starts depending on the contents of the packets, then we'd need a new mechanism to provide feedback on existing packets as if they were all probes. That's clearly out of scope for this doc. Although I agree that fragmentation should be used *if available* to avoid this issue, we're clearly talking about when that's not the case either because of hardware or protocol limitations. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
