RE: Extending shim6 to use multiple locator pairs simultaneously

[Scott Leibrand <sleibrand@internap.com>]

(Cc'ing the list on a private reply: hope that's OK...)

Ah.  In that case, then yes, I would agree that an implementation that
uses "TCP shim" that interacts with shim6 and accomplishes the same thing
as I described would be just as good.  In fact, I would go so far as to
say what they say for state machines: there's nothing to say you have to
do it this way, as long as the observed behavior is the same.

-Scott

On 03/21/06 at 10:22am -0800, Tony Li <tli@tropos.com> wrote:

>
> Sorry, I was assuming shim6 as part of the equation, for exactly the
> reasons that you suggest.
>
> T
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:sleibrand@internap.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:16 AM
> > To: tony.li@tony.li
> > Cc: 'marcelo bagnulo braun'; shim6@psg.com
> > Subject: RE: Extending shim6 to use multiple locator pairs
> > simultaneously
> >
> > On 03/21/06 at 10:08am -0800, Tony Li <tli@tropos.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's another thought that's worth what you paid for it:
> > >
> > > Instead, create a single TCP connection for each link that
> > you want to
> > > use.  Create a muxing layer on top of these connections
> > that distributes
> > > data across the connections in a possibly uneven manner, filling the
> > > buffers of each connection.  This layer would require some
> > additional
> > > framing and sequence numbering.  On the receiver side,
> > demux using the
> > > framing and then reorder the arrived data.  Now, you're
> > using the full
> > > bandwidth of all of the available links, and saturating
> > them up to their
> > > full TCP performance level.
> >
> > Sounds like BitTorrent.  :)
> >
> > The problem I see with this is in creating the multiple TCP
> > connections
> > for the multiple locator pairs.  Without some sort of signalling (aka
> > shim6 context establishment) the two hosts can't know each others'
> > locators.  Without that knowledge, you don't know if you're talking to
> > multiple locators on the same host, or multiple different
> > hosts proving
> > the same service (if you get the multiple IPs via DNS, for example).
> >
> > So I see the incorporation with shim6 as a better fit than trying to
> > re-create many of shim6's features at layer 4.
> >
> > -Scott
> >
>
>
>