Hello folks,
One more bit of follow-up:
On 3/11/2016 4:35 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
Hi Charlie, hi all,
Am 10.03.2016 um 00:09 schrieb Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
Hello folks,
A little follow-up below.
If packets are not queued, no notification should be
sent to the source. (What notification is sent to the source when packets are queued? JWD)
ICMP Destination Unreachable ICMP message is mentioned later.
Is that really the correct message for "Hold on a minute, we're working on getting a route for you but it's not ready yet"? I think that sentence should just be deleted. I'm reading it as "the sender shouldn't be notified that we're not buffering". Imo, if someone wants to tell their clients that they're not buffering, they should be able to do so, but specifying the nitty gritty of that is out of scope.
Yes, right. In my opinion it's a mistake to not buffer TCP packets. I don't want to get into that right now.
That’s not the point of the discussion? If I understand Justin correctly, he doesn’t argue pro/con buffering, he just says that the text isn’t clear? And my point is– Destination Unreachable sounds like the wrong kind of message when we in fact don’t know whether the destination is reachable or not (and we’re buffering until we do).
