Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > This is Mirja's Discuss thread, and MPTCP is her working group, and
    > she knows MPTCP better than I do, but I'm confused about one thing, as
    > I'm reading this discussion ...

...

    > If I'm understanding the discussion, the desire is to use MPTCP to
    > handle failover to another pre-established flow quickly, and Mirja's
    > point is that normal MPTCP would just use both flows - so, not
    > actually failing over, but if you provision for each flow to carry all
    > your traffic, which you would have to do in order to handle failover
    > anyway, I'm not sure why it's bad to let MPTCP do what it would do
    > normally, and load-share across overprovisioned paths.

I also don't know why it would be bad.

My other question is, what happens in MPTCP is one path is significantly
faster (or less lossy) than the other path?  Won't the window open up
significantly on that path and simply attrack more traffic?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to