RE: Transport level multihoming

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

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> > I was on the side of weak aggregation policy until I "saw the light".
>
> great!  send code.

What code to you want? I've collected a few differnt transport hacks that
serve the purpose (such as SCTP) but they require minor (i.e. search and
replace) application level changes.

This working group has pretty much painted themselves into a corner by
concluding that application level changes for multihoming support are not
acceptable.

Because of this, the majority of the transport level multihoming
discussion has been about ugly hacks on TCP involving DNS kludges and
other things that are never going to work.

IPv6 itself requires application level changes of a simmlar extent then
moving to SCTP in TCP-like mode, multihoming *could* be left to apps which
have made the transition, and I've already posted what I believe to be a
fairly good high level set of ideas on how 'total aggregation' can by
maintained (via prefix flow-throughs).