RE: Some thoughts about "path failover"

Hi Spencer,

I think we should consider this somehow. At least we should not
send the path testing packets over all paths simultaneously, but 
instead separated by a short interval (since the paths could
share links).

My guess is that this is closer to RTO, but then again, window
size in IKEv2 is not really related to congestion control (though 
in some sense, "path failover" is trying to detect if the missing
packets were due to congestion, a broken link, or a dead peer).

(I created new issue #14 about this so we don't forget this.)

Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] on behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 2:20 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Mobike] Some thoughts about "path failover"
> 
> 
> 
> > >    - Initiator sends the previous IKEv2 request (not a new one,
> > >      to avoid problems with window size) over all the paths.
> 
> I know the Internet has changed a bit since Slow Start was introduced
> :-}
> 
> but my impression was that if you think you have a problem, sending
> multiple packets into the network is not the right thing to so. You're
> talking about sending single packets over multiple paths, but we don't
> know how disjoint the paths are (so they may all traverse one link
> somewhere on the way). Should we ignore this, or think about it?
> 
> Pasi, do you have a sense that we're talking about a recovery
> mechanism that we use during Fast Recovery, or during RTO (to put
> things in TCP-speak)?
> 
> Spencer