From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KOVACS Krisztian Subject: Re: [RFC] ct_sync 0.15 (corrected) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 22:43:26 +0200 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040822204326.GA25567@sch.bme.hu> References: <1092407190.2402.120.camel@nienna.balabit> <20040819110646.GJ3921@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: To: Harald Welte , KOVACS Krisztian , Netfilter-failover list , netfilter-devel , jamal Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040819110646.GJ3921@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:06:46PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > > So, do anyone know of anything which could be used by ct_sync? > > (It has to be a semi-reliable, connectionless multicast protocol > > with a _very_ low overhead.) > > everything I've seen so far about reliable multicast is inherently > complex. Oops, I've just found TIPC. Does anyone know enough details of TIPC to judge if its reliable multicast service would be useful for us? I've just downloaded the IETF draft, and it seems to me that the reliable multicast service provided by TIPC may be useful (section 2.9 of the draft). Any ideas? The SourceForge URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/tipc/ -- KOVACS Krisztian