Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:12:39 -0400 (EDT)
 From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Subject: Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Daniel Senie wrote:

> Greg, could you reread your last post, reparse the sentences and see if
> you can phrase it in a way that parses? It's REALLY unclear what you're
> trying to say.

I'm very sorry. I've been working too many 16 hour days, doing too
many concurrent tasks, and being constantly interrupted. :(

Thank you for politely pointing this out to me.

The discussed language is the requirement that any proposal be compatible
with 2460 hosts achieving 'degraded multihoming' (DM means: no requirement
that TCP sessions survive a link failure, but the connection can be
reestablished right away).

As far as I can tell, that sort of 'degraded multihoming' is acceptable to
the more vocal here for compatiblity with existing applications. That's my
opinion as well, but I'm not so sure that we need to leave the entire end
node unaltered and still achieve degraded multihoming on that end node.

Alternately,

Would requiring the OS be modifyed be acceptable to provide degraded
multihoming, as long the changes were not substantial and caused no
visable API change and non-modifyed systems would be stuck single homed
without proxys/NATs?)

I think the point is worth of consideration as end-to-end multihoming
might require provisions for NAT in routers if no host changes can be
required for degraded multihoming (and thus require discussions about the
accepeptibility of such methods, if they are not acceptable it might
fully exclude end-to-end multihoming).

If you feel that I sufficently clarified the post in question, and that
this clarification would be useful to others, you have my consent to
forward this onto the list.

Thanks.

--
The comments and opinions expressed herein are those of the author of this 
message and may not reflect the policies of the Martin County Board of
County Commissioners.