RE: SCTP multihoming issues draft

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Coene Lode wrote:
> >     This document describes issues of the Stream Control Transmission
> >     Protocol (SCTP)[RFC2960] in regard to multihoming on the
> >     Internet. It explores cases where through situations in the
> >     internet, single points-of-failure can occur even when using
> >     multihoming and what the impact is of multihoming on the host
> >     routing tables.
> > 
> > ==> what are "host routing tables" ?
>
> selecting the correct outgoing link is a routing descision. See also Andreas
> comments (with which I agree).

"the routing table on hosts" would be better, perhaps.

> > ==> on a generic note: it seems to me there is a need for routing
> > tables on hosts only if one wants to optimize the paths: one is used
> > by default, and if it fails, just (try to) switch to the next one,
> > right?
> > 
> 
> See previous remark on routing tables.

See my reply to Andreas. (note to others: multi6 was stripped from Cc:).

In short, routing table is naturally required, but the draft talks about 
the need to "download" a fuller table from edge routers on hosts.  IMO 
this is unnecessary.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords