[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Preserving established communications (was RE: about draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-00)
Spencer Dawkins;
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).
Wrong.
First of all, you confuse timeout to try alternative addresses
(for HTTP (over TCP) and VoIP) and timeout to disconnect (for
TCP (including TCP under HTTP).
Then, you properly mention, for both cases of timeout, the target
value differs application by application that there can be no
meaningful target defined by multi6.
What's necessary is a set of API for TCP/VoIP layers.
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.
Wrong.
In most of the cases, we can rely on TCP for survivability, just
as TCP is the default mechanism for error free transmission.
They are all described in my draft for these years.
Masataka Ohta