Regards Brian Carpenter http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7924-6182
On 04/03/2015 05:54, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: > >> I think there are two completely separate mechanisms being discussed >> here: the need for rapid failover to a previously known alternative >> address for your partner device, and discovering the alternative >> addresses of your partner. > > Agree. > >> The one thing I think that is still missing in the discussion is >> caching in the name space. Whether name resolution of the remote >> partner address be done via mDNS, DNS, or monitoring the currently >> established channel between partner nodes like in shim6, whatever. > > I think we need this done via the existing channel, a la MP-TCP and SHIM6. Much as I love shim6, it's currently a broken solution because most firewalls drop packets with shim6 extension headers. And it requires both hosts to be updated to be effective. Much as I love MPTCP, it only helps TCP sessions. And it requires both hosts to be updated to be effective. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
