Re: [PATCH] TCP_FAILFAST: a new socket option to timeout/abort a connection quicker

[Arnd Hannemann <hannemann@nets.rwth-aachen.de>]

Hi Lars,

Am 26.08.2010 08:01, schrieb Lars Eggert:
> On 2010-8-26, at 4:49, Jerry Chu wrote:
>   
>> Yes on a 2nd look RFC5482 seems more complex than I originally thought, allowing
>> many different combinations of local/adv/remote UTO... Are they really
>> useful, e.g.,
>> why allowing USER_TIMEOUT to be different from ADV_UTO?? My original thought
>> was the local UTO will always be the same as the one advertised to
>> remote so only
>> one API will be needed plus bunch of flags for ENABLED, CHANGEABLE...
>>     
>
> USER_TIMEOUT is what is locally used for a connection (i.e., takes into account what the remote peer advertised and what we'd like to use), while ADV_UTO is (only) what we'd like to use and are advertising.
>
> (Yes, we initially thought we could make the mechanism simpler, but then we started to think through all the corner cases...)
>   

But from the application point of view it is enough to request a
specific UTO
as a socket option, (which will then get announced via ADV_UTO), right?
Is there any reason, (besides local policy) to not abort the connection
locally
after the time the application specified via the above mentioned socket
option?


Best regards,
Arnd