[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1447970641.22599.261.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:04:01 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
zenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Add a SOCK_DESTROY operation to close sockets from userspace
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 22:53 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>
> You don't steer QUIC source addresses at all? I think most networking
> failures are of transient nature thus the kernel routing subsystem is
> not aware of link quality and packets get lost anyway e.g. in the air?
> Thus binding on multiple interfaces and keepalives seem still
> appropriate, no?
Imagine you are in your home near a wifi AP, then you close a door and
switch to 3G, or another AP.
No down time. packet will eventually reach its destination.
Application does not have to care.
Why QUIC should absolutely use '4-tuple UDP connections' when this is
likely to fail in this scenario ?
--
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