Re: Comments on draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02

[Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 10-nov-04, at 16:16, <john.loughney@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > So, are you suggesting that if we want to maintain any multihoming 
> > bindings,
> > we should rely on application layer keep alives?
>
>
> Certainly not. What I'm saying is that if applications want to be sure a 
> session remains available, they should send keepalives. Then, if the 
> session goes away, the app gets to hear about it without much delay.

That's not true for TCP connections today, or anything below it - the 
session remains available until it is closed, even if unused. Doesn't 
this then change the semantics of 'application silence'?

I don't want unused sessions to consume bandwidth switching around, but 
they shouldn't go away per se.

Joe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature