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

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

>No. But today, connections with TCP/IPv4 and typical IP multi-homing get
>dropped and data gets lost when the prefered path fails. Traffic is lost
>until the routing reconverges which is usually long enough to back TCP off
>into oblivion.

Is this true?  Can other operators or admins of large sites
comment on this statement, in particular?

If this is true for a preponderance of the IPv4 multi-
homing solutions, then I would propose that it is _not_ a
requirement that a scalable IPv6 multi-homing solution 
provide a mechanism to maintain TCP connections across
the failure of an Internet connection point.

It would only be a requirement that TCP hosts can establish
a new TCP connection once the routing tables have converged
to reflect the outage.

There are several ways in which TCP could be modified to
improve this situation, but we could consider those
mechanisms in a different group -- maybe the Transport
Area WG.

Who agrees?

Thanks,
Margaret