[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210181158190.21297@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:00:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@....pp.se>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
cc: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: RE: Bug? TCP shutdown behaviour when deleting local IP addresses
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, David Laight wrote:
> Doing that is almost pointless and gives people false expectations.
>
> Consider the simple network host-hub-hub-host.
> If you disconnect the link between the two hubs then
> only timeouts can cause disconnects.
> Such a remote fault is much more likely than the local one.
My doing suspect/resume on my laptop causes more network interruptions
than any link going down in the network outside my home.
> If the kernel takes down connections when a local interface
> goes down (as windows does) then people doing testing
> fail to test the correct scenario.
I never asked for the kernel to take down connections, I asked for the
connection manager to be able to do it.
> You also don't want a power glitch in the wiring cupboard to disconnect
> all your connections.
In a server environment, most likely you're right. In some other
environment, the opposite probably applies.
> In the past I've also moved IP addresses between physical
> interfaces - modern HA systems might do the same.
Yes, in your described scenario you're right, in my scenario (laptop
suspend/resume) I don't agree with your view.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@....pp.se
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists