On 30/03/07, Stephen Hemminger [off-list ref] wrote:

David Miller wrote:

quoted

Something being in the CGL specification is to me exactly a great
reason NOT to add it.  That specification is so full of garbage it's
unbelievable.

Thanks, you've given me one more reason not to even remotely consider
adding this feature.

Agreed, CGL is a vendor driven group that has always wanted to replicate
proprietary misfeatures onto Linux.  There is a real requirement to
provide high availability but there should be no requirement to implement
the solution in the same crap way as legacy Unix.

OK, let's put aside CGL and legacy Unices.

Still, I don't see how the case I mentioned can easily be handled.
(The case being - effective clean up of all affected client TCP
connections, following failover of the server IP address from active
to passive node in a highly available cluster).