Re: Transport level multihoming

[Ben Black <ben@layer8.net>]

If transport layer multihoming meets the requirements, then I don't
see it as retarding the fundamental discussion.  


Ben

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:38:17PM -0500, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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