[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Thoughts about layering multi-addressing



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