Re: (multi6) requirements draft comments

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

Michel Py wrote:
...
> >> 3.1.6
> >>   Multihoming solutions MUST provide re-homing transparency for
> >>   transport-layer sessions; i.e.  exchange of data between devices on
> >>   the multihomed site and devices elsewhere on the Internet may
> proceed
> >>   with no greater interruption than that associated with the
> transient
> >>   packet loss during the re-homing event.
> >> This appears to be requiring provider independence, since that is the
> 
> >> only way to do this today.
> 
> There might be other ways (TCP hacks/stack hacks), but the PI address
> being the one that is configured on the hosts is the only proven one.

Shame we don't have a PI solution that we actually know how to deploy
and route at large scale.

This requirement could lead to several other conclusions than PI:
- need for an address-agile TCP
- need for universal use of SCTP
- need for 8+8

If it wasn't for the existence of these options as well as the illusory
PI, I would recommend simply removing requirement 3.1.6 as unrealistic.

  Brian