Re: Thoughts about layering multi-addressing

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Tony,
El 20/08/2005, a las 1:43, Tony Li escribió:

> Just a historical note:
>
> The reason that we started talking about a shim layer in the first 
> place was to prevent changes in the ULPs.  If such changes are in fact 
> permissible, it would be FAR preferable to make the ULPs locator agile 
> and dispense with the shim entirely.

Right and agree

It is clear that the priority is that the shim provides multihoming 
support for unchanged ULPs

The question is: after the shim is available, wouldn't it make sense to 
allow modified ULPs to have a richer signaling with the shim?

I mean, in this scenario, the shim is still used to provide some basic 
features for multiaddressing support, like the shim protocol is used to 
securely exchange the address set available for each end, for instance, 
and perhaps the path exploration procedure of the shim can be used to 
identify available alternative paths. But shim capable ULPs could 
actually do some functions that they would perform more adequately, 
like failure detection more adjusted to their own vision of what a 
failure is, or enhanced referral support (including all the address set 
in the referral)

Do you think that this would make sense?

Regards, marcelo


> Regards,
> Tony