Re: Network layer reqt? [was Re: Transport level multihoming]

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Greg;

> > > I think Margaret Wasserman's message captured the requirement. An
> > > IPv6 host running RFC 2460 IPv6, and running TCP and UDP applications, 
> > > including IPv4 applications running over bump-in-the-stack or 
> > > bump-in-the-API, must be able to open *new* TCP and UDP sessions,
> > > regardless of which of the site's IPv6 provider links is up or down.
> > 
> > Wrong.
> > 
> > TCP is the reliable transport.
> > 
> > Most TCP applications are so stateful that they can not accept a
> > loss of bytes.
> > 
> > If you insist that TCP may be unreliable upon multihoming,
> > you will end up with construting virtual reliable TCP over
> > unreliable TCP.
> 
> I don't think that was the intention. I think the intention is that your
> TCP session may die, or UDP may lose packets but be re-establishable if
> there is another provider available.  Much like ATM SVCs must be 
> reconnected if a path totally fails.

You miss the point.

> > Most TCP applications are so stateful that they can not accept a
> > loss of bytes.

Neither SVC nor TCP reconnection restores lost data.

						Masataka Ohta