[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on draft-crocker-mast-proposal-00.txt

On zaterdag, sep 6, 2003, at 01:45 Europe/Amsterdam, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

- I like the possibility of using MAST with IPv4. I took a quick look
at LIN6, after Masataka's note on MULTI6. There were things I liked
about LIN6, but the IP version number in the acronym was not a
feature.

But is it realistic to expect to deploy a technology in IPv4 that uses up additional address space?

- I understand why you are thinking "end hosts only". You might also
want to think about MAST proxies to allow MAST mobility against an
unmodified correspondent host (to use the MIP term).

Always high on my list of desirable features because it makes deployment a lot easier.

- I agree with Matataka's note that selecting an interface is not an
easy problem. When I've asked about this in places like DNA, the
pushback is that this decision is internal to a host, and need
not/should not be standardized in IETF.

Yeah right. See RFC 3484.

- I'm wondering how much you have thought about the use of PROBEs to
verify path connectivity from time to time.

I've tried to convince the SCTP folks that this is a bad idea right on this here list, but unfortunately they weren't convinced. Just checking path availability is mostly useless and wastes bandwidth.

If you only have two paths you're going to try the second one anyway when the first fails because there is no reasonable alternative course of action. If you have more paths there is a signicant chance that several of them will fail because of the same underlying problem.

If you really want to be cool, _use_ the different paths concurrently. I'm convinced that as soon as we've got the basic multiadressing mechanisms in place, load balancing single TCP sessions over multiple paths will be the next big thing.

Iljitsch