Is NOID-like sufficient? [was Re: Persistent or opportunistic IDs]

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
...
> Of course. Let's start with a question that's probably a bit easier to 
> answer: is a NOID-like solution that's mostly about keeping existing 
> sessions running when there is an outage sufficient?

I don't see that restriction in NOID. It certainly works for directing
new sessions to a working path (assuming the necessary module for
selecting a working path is present, but every solution needs that).
And if that module is present and handles load balancing, then NOID
also handles load-balancing.

Which of the RFC 3582 goals does NOID not support?

   Brian