> Still there is the issue that user level protocols can't signal forward
> process to the kernel. How about adding a socket option that does it
> for connected sockets to plug this hole?
It is possible, but I do not believe that this thing is really useful.
ARP is enough cheap to prefer background pinging to new syscall,
made in data path. Besides that, it requires, that datagram protocols,
keeping some state (f.e. DNS) become system dependant.
This thing has no chances to live.
Well, I think, when this element will appear (or recognized to be useless)
for IPv6, we will port it back to IPv4.
What's about this case: using user level notifications in this case
is not solution. If target does not answer arp, it is broken,
no advanced tricks will change this fact and any cure is just workaround.
Increasing timeout is the easiest workaround, at least.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/