On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Luigi Iannone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William Herrin wrote: >> Who said anything about sending extra packets? The payload packets are >> the test. The acks (or their absence) are the response to the test. > > > This if you assume symmetric traffic (e.g., TCP) and symmetric routing > (i.e., A -> B = B -> A). > IMHO you can't make this assumption.
Luigi, One of us is very confused. I was talking about host-level traffic where exactly two hosts using multiple locators are talking to each other. What are you talking about? On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Dino Farinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And assumes that the data rate of the host returning traffic on the > symmetric path is within your switchover budget. And what if traffic is > unidirectional? Dino, It couldn't be purely unidirectional or you wouldn't have been able to look up the GUID to find the locator in the first place. That is one of the constraints on a host-based solution. A trivial host can't do unicast fire-and-forget the way, for example, SNMP traps do. Multicast and anycast fire-and-forget is still possible. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
