Re: shim - transport/network communication

[Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>]

On 21-Mar-05, at 5:46 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> 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?

Let's not re-open that thread.

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

Unless you are a basement multi-homer, we are talking about different 
things.

> > I would like any new multihoming facility to be
>
> I don't think we should revist the multi6 requirements ordeal.

Me neither. I was trying to illustrate that stepping up from the level 
of details about path selection is more useful.

> > 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".

It was the "the" word that concerned me, not the "best" word.


Joe