Re: delayed multihoming/mobility set-up

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

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

>   Is it necessary to ensure connection survivability prior to the 
> connection
>   establishment?
>
>   Or, is it necessary to ensure connection survivability in parallel 
> with
>   the connection establishment?
>
>   Or even, is it OK to just ensure connection survivability only for
>   "long-lived" sessions (e.g., those which have lasted for longer than 
> 5
>   minutes), using some definition.
>
> The last one would be obviously useful with low-mobility rate, or site
> multihoming when the connection survivability method you're using would
> require extra packets or extra delay to set up -- and you'd want to 
> avoid
> that when it's not necessary.
>
> Note that in low-mobility or site multihoming scenarios you don't 
> expect
> the the multihoming to be required *immediately*; the risk increases in
> proportion to the time.  Would an "intentional race-condition" be
> acceptable in most cases?

If we assume that we are using BGP for the EGP routing updates, we have 
the Ahuja/Labovitz route cancellation effect. If I remember correctly, 
their research showed that 40% of re-routing takes 2-4 minutes (I am 
taking this out of my head). This would IMHO give the reference of how 
long a "rehoming event" could take. Anything lower than that is a bonus 
:-)

- - kurtis -

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

iQA/AwUBP7kvE6arNKXTPFCVEQInpgCg7dPlgYdWWDlQKJzfp09qsERQY4kAoPy5
8mZSHcprwOtx0OEYAxQPHyZz
=wZ5F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----