lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:24:09 +0900 (JST)
From:	OBATA Noboru <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22] TCP: Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable (take 2)

Hi Rick,

From: Rick Jones <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22] TCP: Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable (take 2)
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:16:43 -0700

> OBATA Noboru wrote:
> > What about another option to let TCP have a notification?
> > 
> > Can it be a solution if it is standardized?
> It would at best be a partial solution which would only work when the 
> link failover/whatnot happened on the same system/node as the TCP 
> endpoint.  Then it can be some sort of call-back to TCP or the like.

I understood that the IETF document pointed by John has such a

> If this failover is out in the middle of the cloud the only way to get a 
> notification back to TCP would be by sending it a packet of some sort 
> and I don't see that happening.


I learned that, in practice, the route monitoring by probe
packets (ICMP or others) is used to detect a failure along the
route to an important host.

This monitoring apparently doesn't scale and so its use is
limited to the route to an important host, but practices show
that it is quite effective in monitoring.

I am now wondering about a TCP notification mechanism combined
with the route monitoring.


OBATA Noboru (
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists