From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: Bug? TCP shutdown behaviour when deleting local IP addresses Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:29:42 +0200 Message-ID: <1350545382.26103.1103.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <507F38D4.102@genband.com> <1350540348.26103.1015.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <507FAAE1.6000903@genband.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev , David Miller , Alexey Kuznetsov , James Morris , Patrick McHardy , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI To: Chris Friesen Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:35915 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751468Ab2JRH3s (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:29:48 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id jk13so3958027bkc.19 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:29:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <507FAAE1.6000903@genband.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. So change your strategy, and add an iptables rule for example ?