Re: Transport multihoming

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

Why would we do that rather than rolling out SCTP? I can imagine an
API trick to make SCTP look like TCP to a legacy app.

The notion that we can solve it without host stack mods is pretty
unlikely.

   Brian

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> Greg, Peter,
> 
> As I see it, the reason to have the multihoming functionality inside one
> or more transport protocols is that the transport layer has end-to-end
> knowledge that makes it possible to make better multihoming decisions.
> 
> Would it be possible to have a modified TCP talk to a non-modified TCP
> through some kind of "mudem" (multihomer/demultihomer), without loss of
> the core multihoming functionality, and without the "mudem" having to
> keep long-term state?
> 
> This would create a much more attractive deployment path as people can
> choose to either upgrade hosts or put them behind a box to provide the
> multihoming functionality.
> 
> It also makes it possible to move the multihoming decision making to a
> place where it can be better controlled if this is desired.
> 
> Iljitsch (or just call me dr. Frankenstein)

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland