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

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>]

My apologies for not being clearer. What I meant was, multi6 should
pick a targer for survivability, whether measured in tens of minutes
(TCP), tens of seconds (HTTP with a human in the loop) or hundreds of
milliseconds (VoIP).

By doing so, communities can consider their needs vis-a-vis the
target. If your needs are met by the target, you can rely on multi6
for survivability, and if not, you can start working on
special-purpose survivability mechanisms.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>; <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:56 AM
Subject: RE: Preserving established communications (was RE: about
draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-00)


> Hi Spencer,
>
> > Agreed, but I'm not sure everyone else in the IETF agrees. It
Would Be
> > Lovely to pick a target (TCP survivability, HTTP survivability,
VoIP
> > survivability being three rough possibilities) and agree on it.
>
> What do you mean?
> That the M6 layer should provide 3 types of service, TCP HTTP and
VoIP like
> services and that the app can select it? Or perhaps an automatic
selection
> based in the port/protocol combination that is being used?
> Or just that we should have theses 3 services as reference?
>
> Regards, marcelo
>