William Herrin wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>
symmetric traffic : is the same remark as Dino, i.e., unidirectional
traffic.
symmetric routing: your data packet and your ack do not pass necessarily
through the same LOCs (which limits the capacity of discover the broken
link). Am I wrong?
Luigi
> 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
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
