RE: Preserving established communication focus

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org]En
> nombre de marcelo bagnulo
> Enviado el: martes, 04 de mayo de 2004 19:53
> Para: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Preserving established communication focus
>
>
> Hi,
>
> My main concern about this document

I was reffering to draft-huston-multi6-architectures-00, of course

Sorry for the possible confusion, regards, marcelo


> is that it only covers the problem of
> preserving established communications through outages. While this is an
> important problem, this is not the only problem with multihoming, and i
> would even say that it is not the most important feature that has to be
> provided (it is the most difficult/challenging/amusing one, though :-)
>
> I guess that multihoming should provide at least fault tolerance
> and traffic
> engineering capabilities.
>
> Traffic engineering capabilities are not covered in the document, nor the
> impact of one or other approach in the resulting TE capabilities of the
> approach.
>
> Fault tolerance features are also broader than the problem of preserving
> established communications. Additionally, the problem of establishing new
> communications after an outage is relevant (and i would say that
> in general
> is more relevant than preserving established ones)
>
> So i would argue to perform a broader approach, like the one
> provided by JN
> chiappa in his multihoming points:
>
> "There are many different potential *goals* one may have for using
> multihoming,
> e.g.:
>
>  - Reliability
>  - Load balancing
>  - More optimal paths
>  - etc
>
> Depending on what one is trying to use multihoming *for*, this may make a
> lot
> difference to what mechanism(s) (see Obervation #0 about "cost") it makes
> sense to use.
>
> [...]
>
> When multihoming is used to provide *reliability*, there are (at least?) 3
> different levels of potential capability available. Those 3
> classes (in what
> appears to me to be the increasing order of difficulty) are:
>
>  - Allow new outgoing connections
>  - Allow new incoming connections
>  - Keep existing connections open
>
> Again, depending on what level of capability one wishes to provide, the
> mechanism used may differ."
>
> I guess that the presented analysis can be extended to also considered the
> additional fault tolerance capabilities. for instance it would be required
> to add additonal considerations w.r.t these points
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
>
>
>
>