Re: Transport level multihoming

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:
> 
...
> >
> > The site level approach considers the address space as a skeleton upon which
> > you can apply the flesh of routing.  No matter how you shake it, the skeleton
> > is rigid as it is based on relatively static allocation policies.
> 
> I am not saying that we should abandon the existing routing architecture.
> In fact, we would be exploiting its excellent scaling and
> routing properties. 

Its what?? Haven't you read draft-iab-bgparch-01.txt? We don't have any
scaling left to play with. That's why we are here.

> All translated addresses would be providing is a
> sticky point of reference for a flow around which fault-tolerance through
> routing, and scalability through aggregation will be achieved.

We invented IPv6 to avoid the need for address translation and all its
attendant problems. The argument for a multi6 solution at transport level
is to *deal with* the existence of multiple addresses and precisely to avoid
translation. There is an alternative, which is the type of architected
address translation implied by 8+8, GSE etc but please let's avoid painting
ourselves into a corner that requires both transport layer gymnastics and NAT;
that would be a catastrophe.

   Brian