Re: to be draft-ohta-multi6-8plus8-00.txt

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

marcelo;

> > How can transport layer protocols detect that an end or its peer
> > is capable of M6?

> As far as i understand, in order to support 8+8 you have to change transport
> protocols, right?

Yes, but...

> So just add an option that means that you supprt address agile version of
> the transport protocol.

The problem is that the modified transport layer can not interoperate
with legacy one, unless legacy and 8+8 ones are distinguished easily.

> > How can you make IDs survive ISP changes?

> Well, this is a plus but it is not the problem that we are trying to solve
> here, right?

I explain why I proposed the current proposal, part of which may
not because it is required by M6. Right?

> this is a problem about changing isps, so we could have a multihoming
> solution that don't provide this (though i agree that i would be good to
> solve this problem too)

Brian also showed his concern on instability of IDs.

> > How can you be sure to rewrite addresses at the IP layer, if
> > you are not sure that all the transport layer protocols can
> > still identify an end?

> No, i was thinking in something like TCP-MH

That some transport layer protocol negotiate with its peer that
some locators are valid does not mean IP layer locator change
(such as that by mobility) can be notified to the transport
layer in time.

However, I am recognizing that there is a complex interaction of
IP and transport layer locator changes w.r.t. security.

						Masataka Ohta