Re: shim - transport/network communication

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 21-mrt-05, at 23:35, Joe Abley wrote:

> What about an application that really wants the minimum packet loss, 
> or the minimum jitter, or the maximum throughput? Or a path where 
> 80/tcp isn't transparently redirected, or a path with no NAT, or a 
> path where 161/udp is permitted? How about a path with a path MTU 
> greater than 1500 bytes?

How exactly does BGP address these needs today?

(Except by being so complex and expensive that service providers aren't 
about to lose your business by forcing NAT or filtering shenanigans on 
you.)

((BTW, my ADSL line meets all these requirements (the 1500+ one only 
for the first hop, though)))

> I would like any new multihoming facility to be

I don't think we should revist the multi6 requirements ordeal.

> I worry about talk of a multi-homing solution which automatically 
> chooses "the" best path from a set of candidate paths for all traffic 
> which flows through an AS.

You're not the only one. Fred explicitly avoided using "the best".