Re: Requirements [was Re: Transport level multihoming]

[Joe Abley <jabley-ietf@automagic.org>]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:26:14PM -0500, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Cutting to the chase: I've thought. And no, we can't make it a requirement
> that the multihoming solution *requires* host and app changes. We can certainly
> make it a requirement that the multihoming solution *allows* host and
> app changes to enhance session survivability. 

That sounds like a very reasonable compromise.

> Please remember when evaluating this that we are digging deeper than just
> tweaking the IPv6 stack - we've been talking about fundamental changes
> to the transport layer, the API, and the logic flow in apps for network
> access. The inertia there is very, very great and largely independent
> of IPvN.

I agree that there would need to be some very compelling benefits to
cause us to recommend transport-layer semantic changes.


Joe