Re: A tunneling proposal

["Jon (Taz) Mischo" <taz@tazlore.com>]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> > Look back at old archives of the IETF and other lists to read some of Noel
> > Chiappa's and others' writings on the mathematics of network topology and
> > addressing. If the "addresses" used by routing don't follow the underlying
> > network topology, excessive state is introduced. For multihoming to really
> > work, it needs to use topologically-significant addressing. That suggests
> > that the "multi" in "multihoming" also implies multiple addresses, with
> > something like SCTP to handle them intelligently.
> 
> 1. Forget SCTP: if we want this, we should build it into TCP and not change
>    transport layers to a protocol that has just one desirable feature and
>    forget 20 years of experience with the most successful protocol in
>    history.

Wow...let's not use something based on 20 years of experience that already
exists, let's re-invent the wheel instead.

> 2. The current way of multihoming works much better for the multihomed
>    network, what is their incentive to go with multiple addresses?

The current way?  The incentive is seamless failover.

-Taz

-- 
        "Be liberal in what you accept,
      and conservative in what you send."
--Jon Postel (1943-1998) RFC 1122, October 1989