RE: Fwd: Minutes / Notes

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> I think a tax that is of a bigger concern is that we need to affect
most
> of the predominant implementations out there.  Once we get past that
> hurdle, having a host that knows that it's multi-homed or it's
> corresponding
> with a multi-homed host is a small additional tax with substantial
> benefits.

I don't know about most implementations. We definitely need a solution
that is "upward compatible" with the current implementations, so we
should assume that there will be co-existence for a long time. And I
could definitely see why some implementations would just decide to
forget the benefits of multi-homing, or at least those of TCP
survivability. But I am concerned mostly with the tax on applications
that run on a multi-homed system, yet are perfectly happy dealing
directly with addresses/locators. I would assert that this is the bulk
of current applications.

-- Christian Huitema