Re: Transport level multihoming

[Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Greg,
> 
> Regardless of whether transport level multihoming can be
> achieved (which is a long running debate, and I agree
> that SCTP makes it a bit more plausible), the operational
> requirement for IP level multihoming isn't going to go away
> at least for the next 10 or 15 years, so we have to solve it.

Bah.

I don't agree. 

It is totally feasible to implement a self-multihomed-transport-protocol
with the exactly the same level of API change as is required for IPv6
support. All the needs to be changes is the paramaters for settings
what addresses to bind to, beyond that, configuration knobs like
prefered address are optional (the default should be decided via RTT
or TTL, etc).

SCTP may not currenly offer this level of API change simplicity, but it is
certantly possible.

I think there is a lot of potential common-intrest here, it would be
foolish to ignore it.