[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Small comment on draft-jen-apt-00.txt
On Oct 15, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Michael R Meisel wrote:
And the standard question: how will this work with SCTP?
APT will be invisible to end users. This means that it should not
have any effect on any transport-layer protocol.
But SCTP doesn't *want* that invisibility, because it explicitly
chooses
to change to an alternative address in order to use an alternative
path.
How do you allow SCTP to do its job?
my apology for this belated comment, but a clarification might be
worthwhile even though it is late. Michael's comment below is
exactly right:
- a SCTP node can have multiple IP addresses only when it has
multiple interfaces (physical or virtual).
- i.e. it is the host-multihoming that allows a SCTP node
to "explicitly chooses to change to an alternative address".
- A SCTP node, as far as I understand (as co-author of the first SCTP
spec), does not have a power to choose alternative paths out of
*site* multihoming--which is what we are talking about here--if those
paths are not reflected in the node's choice of its IP addresses.
The same way BGP allows SCTP to do its job today. If you try a
different address, you are just as likely to get a different path
through the network with APT in place are you are without it. When
I say that APT is invisible, I mean that end hosts shouldn't be
able to tell whether it's being used or not -- everything should
work the same as it does today from their perspective.
-Michael
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg