[RFC] ct_sync 0.15 (corrected)
Tue Aug 24 19:37:52 CEST 2004
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 10:43:26PM +0200, KOVACS Krisztian wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:06:46PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> > > So, do anyone know of anything which could be used by ct_sync?
> > > (It has to be a semi-reliable, connectionless multicast proto=
> > > with a _very_ low overhead.)
> > everything I've seen so far about reliable multicast is inherently
> > complex.
> Oops, I've just found TIPC. Does anyone know enough details of TIPC to
> judge if its reliable multicast service would be useful for us? I've just
> downloaded the IETF draft, and it seems to me that the reliable multicast
> service provided by TIPC may be useful (section 2.9 of the draft). Any
Unfortunately I did only learn about TIPC recently. But looking at the
IETF draft and the current implementation, I think it is probably too
expensive. Another argument is to not base ct_sync on something big
outside of the official kernel tree that is not under our control..
- Harald Welte <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.netfilter.org/
"Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the netfilter-devel