RE: Requirements [was Re: Transport level multihoming]

[Jim.Bound@nokia.com]

Brian,

If the answer to 'b' is no here as you say.  Life will be much easier for
sure.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday,April 04,2001 11:10 AM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Requirements [was Re: Transport level multihoming]
> 
> 
> Thanks Margaret for getting some precision into the discussion.
> 
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> ...
> > Let's make a distinction between the ability to do two 
> > things:
> > 
> >          (a) Establish and use new upper layer communication
> >                  sessions (i.e. TCP connections).
> >          (b) Maintain existing upper layer communication sessions.
> > 
> > Is it required that an existing IPv6 stack be able to do (a)
> > and/or (b) in the following site multi-homing situations?
> > 
> >          (1)  When both (or all) of the multi-homed site's
> >               connections to the Internet are working?
> > 
> >                  Obviously, we need (a) and (b) to work.
> > 
> >          (2)  When one of the multi-homed site's connections to
> >               the Internet stops working?
> > 
> >                  We need (a).  Do we need (b)?  Or is acceptable
> >                  to require host software updates to obtain
> >                  reliable connections in this situation?
> > 
> My answer is no, it would be a very serious mistake to require (b)
> in this case. It would result in an undeployable solution.
> 
>    Brian
>