Add handling for tcp register timeout leaving connection dead

[nvollmar]

Refs #1182

[mdedetrich]

lgtm, @pjfanning @Roiocam @He-Pin @jxnu-liguobin @raboof Should also take a look

[pjfanning]

lgtm

[pjfanning]

maybe in some further iteration, we could look at retries - but this is an improvement as is

[laglangyue]

LGTM

[nvollmar]

I was thinking going the other direction and questioning the need for the Register message.
As far as I could see from a quick search, the Register is always sent by the same actor that opens the connections.

So do we need to have that capability to have a different handler? Or could we inline everything into the connection open and avoid having that timeout entirely?

It also seems to be a really really rare case since it usually only takes milliseconds (receiving the message and replying back). We only ever saw that in case of a test environment we use in low power mode and deploy a complete system to it.

[Roiocam]

I think we may need to investigate deeper. ❤️

[He-Pin]

I will TAL at weekend, a little busy at $Work

[He-Pin]

lgtm, as it was supervised by org.apache.pekko.pattern.BackoffSupervisor.

[mdedetrich]

Got enough approvals, merging so it can get released with M1