RE: Extending shim6 to use multiple locator pairs simultaneously

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Erik,

I think I answered this before, but let me reply again.

>> For SCTP + SHIM (which Marcelo & I had a hallway chat about - and 
>> maybe should write-up), there could be confusion about what 
>the 'path' 
>> is when combined.  I think the SHIM API should have a mechanism to 
>> signal up to the transport layer that the SHIM layer has re-homed so 
>> that the transport layer could decide what should be done - if it 
>> thinks slow-start should be run, etc.
>
>I don't understand how your comment relates to Scott's idea to 
>run multiple paths in parallel. You seem to be talking about 
>shim and sctp interaction, which wasn't what I and Scott was 
>discussing.

My mistake - I should have changed the subject line, as I was
responding to a comment.

>If you are talking about how SCTP and SHIM6 would interact, I 
>think we want to start from the point of SCTP setting the 
>DONTSHIM option, so that the shim and sctp aren't used for the 
>same communication.

I agree, but I think explaining why, perhaps in the Applicability
Statement would be good.

>Past that, it makes sense to study if there are more 
>interesting ways for sctp and the shim to share the 
>multihoming work. Potentially this can provide a more secure 
>way that sctp's addip functionality. But I don't have a good 
>idea on how such a split should be done.
>Anybody interested in looking into this?

Yes, I am. I'll look at sending some text.

John