Re: identity persistence and comparison issues

Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>
> ...
> 
>>> In other words, the bind(2) call can trigger the creation of a 
>>> longer-lived identifier. Still, I'm not sure how applications 
>>> determine which address to use in referrals, it may be necessary to 
>>> make this an explicit API call = application changes = a bad thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's an interesting point. In a 2-way conversation, a 'close' on a 
>> socket
>> is a strong signal that the stack can forget any state (unless there is
>> some optimization possible by caching the state)....
> 
> 
> 'close' is an app-side input to the stack; there are other 
> considerations about when to drop state.
> 
> E.g., TCP has to keep TIME_WAIT to avoid reusing ports/seq numbers. At 
> which point addresses from elsewhere cannot be moved 'here' until these 
> timers expire.

Correct, of course. As usual I abbreviated... but in the absence of the clean up
by a transport protocol, i.e. for UDP, the 'close' is all you have.

     Brian