# Re: Bug? TCP shutdown behaviour when deleting local IP addresses

- From: Chris Friesen \<hidden\>
- Date: 2012-10-19 15:13:18 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2012/10/10906348
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2012/10/10906172/t.md

```text
On 10/18/2012 01:29 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 01:08 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>
>> While I agree generally, it's a bit unfortunate that we can't (as a
>> quality of implementation thing) give an earlier notice of failure since
>> the kernel knows about both ends of the connection even though the IP
>> address is gone.  On the other hand, I imagine that would mean
>> special-casing things and presumably that would open a whole can of worms.
>
> Really what is the difference between a cable cut and what you are
> doing ?
>
> Some frames are lost (Dropped), and sender doesnt 'know' that is
> definitive or temporary failure.
>
> If you want faster response, you need to send RST messages, not dropping
> frames.

After thinking about it for a while, I think you're right.  Initially I was expecting that since we know the server side has been taken down we should be able to kill the client side, but then I considered the case where some sort of of high availability system may have moved the server to another host.

> So change your strategy, and add an iptables rule for example ?

That's a good suggestion.  I'll pass it on.

Thanks,
Chris
```