Re: Transport level multihoming

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

OK, maybe not a separate list but please let's be very clear that
discussing transport level multihoming mustn't retard the
fundamental discussion of IP level multihoming. 

   Brian

Ben Black wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:48:43PM -0500, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > I think there is a lot of potential common-intrest here, it would be
> > > foolish to ignore it.
> >
> > True, but like it or not this will not take away the need for IP level
> > multihoming. In fact I think transport layer multihoming would be better
> > served by a separate discussion list.
> >
> 
> I don't think it is quite yet time for another list.  Although I like the
> approach of pushing multihoming into the transport protocol, it has a
> fundamental weakness which has to be addressed in general, and not just
> with a single protocol like SCTP: Any new transport protocol MUST have
> this functionality.  This can be burdensome, particularly for protocols
> like RTP that carry around a significant amount of addressing information
> for various purposes.  I don't even want to think of the atrocities that
> would be committed in the name of global multicast, either.
> 
> So, for those supporting the use of transport multihoming, how about
> a draft that generalizes the concept?  Protocol Requirements for
> Transport Multihoming, perhaps?  In combination with a draft or drafts
> giving the previously mentioned transparent API for existing TCP and
> UDP apps, this could be viewed as a complete package for one possible
> solution to the multihoming problem we face.
> 
> Ben