From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: AF_BUS socket address family Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20120630.173346.670086962166528527.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20120629234230.GA11480@kyllikki.org> <20120629.165023.1605284574408858612.davem@davemloft.net> <20120630141222.60df95a5@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: vincent.sanders@collabora.co.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120630141222.60df95a5@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Alan Cox Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:12:22 +0100 > In fact if you look up the stack you'll find a large number of multicast > messaging systems which do reliable transport built on top of IP. In fact > Red Hat provides a high level messaging cluster service that does exactly > this. (as well as dbus which does it on the deskop level) plus a ton of > stuff on top of that (JGroups etc) > > Everybody at the application level has been using these 'receiver > reliable' multicast services for years (Websphere MQ, TIBCO, RTPGM, > OpenPGM, MS-PGM, you name it). There are even accelerators for PGM based > protocols in things like Cisco routers and Solarflare can do much of it > on the card for 10Gbit. The issue is that what to do when a receiver goes deaf is a policy issue.