Re: Preserving established communications (was RE: about draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-00)

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On tisdag, okt 28, 2003, at 13:32 Europe/Stockholm, Erik Nordmark wrote:

> This is expressed in the document as "transport survivability" but I 
> don't
> think we discussed whether this also implied a failover in any 
> particular
> time. As we've discussed different transports have radically different
> time constraints.
>

To some extent I wonder how much of this is really a multi6 problem. As 
you point out, we will never know how long ULP will continue to try 
before giving up. This might render ULP hints useless in that 
particular case. We also don't know what failure detection is in use 
for the ULPs. More, if there is also a rerouting event causing 
distribution of bad news, and perhaps a new set of locators, or the 
signaling to move to new locators, this might trigger a "race-like" 
condition, depending in what order the priorities are set and in which 
order they arrive where, and then actually making the case worse - no? 
Would it not be better to simply say that survivability and 
"restoration" time is due to these X factors, they can be influenced by 
this - but they are not an issue per se for the multi6 layer. They 
might depend on ULP signaling, BGP convergence, etc. But that is 
another issue.

Am I making my life to easy here?

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP5+NMKarNKXTPFCVEQLuTQCg8NTn1V0mniEDuTYQCybs3cyLFnUAoIq+
6m1xmITLki2bShj/JcERogDm
=DI3I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----