Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Ben Black wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 07:35:47PM -0400, Greg Maxwell wrote:
> > 
> > For point are we talking about RFC 2460 for the entire host or API level
> > up?  Requiring no changes to the entire host for re-establishment may
> > require contortions from transport level proposals, is this functionality
> > actually required.
> 
> That is the question open to debate :)

Personally, I think it's reasonable to require a host change to switch to
another prefix when there is link failure. However, others here have a lot
more knoweldge then I about what the production channel looks like,
obviously the solution can't be allowed to fail because it requires too
much of vendors.

If others think that no-mod full host 2460 fail-over support is required,
what do you think of regarding it as legacy and allowing proposals to
solve it with ugly things like NAT-on-link-failure <shivers>.

I think it would be wise to trade a bit of end-to-end transparency in the
short term (NAT for link failure on plain 2460 hosts) for additional
end-to-end transparency in the future. 

> > I have another requirement:
> > 
> > Any proposed system must not intrinsically exclude bi-directional traffic
> > engineering. 
> > 
> 
> This is already covered in the draft, with examples of why people shift
> their traffic around (performance, cost, etc).

Duh. Sorry. I read it, I'm being stupid.