[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50816DE0.4070700@genband.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:12:32 -0600
From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: 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 10/18/2012 01:29 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 01:08 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>
>> While I agree generally, it's a bit unfortunate that we can't (as a
>> quality of implementation thing) give an earlier notice of failure since
>> the kernel knows about both ends of the connection even though the IP
>> address is gone. On the other hand, I imagine that would mean
>> special-casing things and presumably that would open a whole can of worms.
>
> Really what is the difference between a cable cut and what you are
> doing ?
>
> Some frames are lost (Dropped), and sender doesnt 'know' that is
> definitive or temporary failure.
>
> If you want faster response, you need to send RST messages, not dropping
> frames.
After thinking about it for a while, I think you're right. Initially I
was expecting that since we know the server side has been taken down we
should be able to kill the client side, but then I considered the case
where some sort of of high availability system may have moved the server
to another host.
> So change your strategy, and add an iptables rule for example ?
That's a good suggestion. I'll pass it on.
Thanks,
Chris
--
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