Re: Transport level multihoming

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

I'm against making that too absolute. It is a bit more subtle:

  A multihomed site must be able to operate legacy applications
  unchanged. However, it may be desirable for the multihoming
  system to offer hints or even controls to applications able
  to use them, by means of a multihoming API.

A more basic question - are we able to *require* changes in the
host IPv6 stack in support of multihoming? 

  Brian

Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> RJ,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:30:18PM -0400, Greg Maxwell wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > >         SCTP is interesting, but not sufficient.  The current
> > > multihoming practice works with existing TCP-based and UDP-based
> > > applications, without changing them.  Changing the installed
> > > base of those applications to use SCTP instead isn't feasible
> > > in any sort of interesting timeframe -- if such migration is
> > > feasible at all.
> 
> The requirement that no changes should be required in applications
> in order to multi-home does not feature in our draft. Do you think
> it should be there?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> Joe

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org 
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org