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

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Iljitsch;

Read the draft and think.

> I'm sure most NATs use incremental updates too the 
> checksum so this would still work but I'm equally sure there are one or 
> two out there that simply recompute the whole checksum, which isn't 
> what you want here.

That is an uninteresting implementation detail.

> How does MAST fit in the current communication model? Do you do MAST 
> first and then a three way handshake? Set up TCP first and then do MAST?

It is documented in the draft.

     Hence a host may initiate and conduct a classic, single IP-
     pair TCP connection. It may then separately query for remote
     host support of MAST and initiate a MAST exchange to be used
     by that connectivity.  Either participant is then free to
     add or remove addresses. Of course use of MAST may instead
     be performed before a transport context is established, so
     that future contexts immediately have access to multiple IP
     addresses.
 
> > SD> - I agree with Matataka's note that selecting an interface is not 
> > an
> > SD> easy problem.
> 
> > I agree.  That's why MAST says a) it's a hard problem, worthy of 
> > study, and b) until we understand it better, be simplistic and 
> > conservative.
> 
> Actually if you can jump addresses this is no longer a big issue. 

Wrong.

Why you don't give any definition on "jump", that MAST support
the mechanism to change addresses does not help to solve *THE*
problem.

							Masataka Ohta