RE: Transport level multihoming

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

The problem with application methods is that they're prone to application
coding errors.  There's already a big hit ofr app developers to convert to IPv6
anyway.  Making it even harder can be seen to be counterproductive.

Peter

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Greg Maxwell wrote:

> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210