Re: A tunneling proposal

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

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:

> For most applications, what you say is true. But given that SCTP was first
> devised for SS7 signaling where operator alerts, log generation, etc. may
> be required, I can sympathize with this design...

Also, it doesn't HAVE to be that way.  You *CAN* bind to all the addresses
the machine has.

-Taz

> -ramki
> 
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Tony Li wrote:
> 
> >
> >  | In SCTP, it is the job of the app to be feed the transport with a list of
> >  | correct globally routable destination addresses, and be prepared to
> >  | receive error notifications after an address fails.
> >
> >
> > I don't mean to be a pedantic layerist, but it seems to me that the network
> > and transport layers probably should keep the multihoming problems out of
> > the hands of the applications.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> 
> 

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