Keith;
READ THE DRAFT.
> > Multihoming scales and is reliable and easy, if it is offered end to
> > end by intelligent end systems, transport/application protocols on
> > which directly handles all the multiple IP addresses from DNS
> > (and mobility).
>
> uh, no. multihoming done by end systems has a different set of problems
> than multihoming done by routers. end systems have no good way to keep
> track of changes to network topology,
There is.
READ THE DRAFT.
> also, it is very hard to support
> mobility satisfactorily in this manner, especially when multiple
> communicating end systems are moving at the same time.
Mobility is no more difficult.
> seems like an exaggeration. FT apps do want to be explicitly informed
> about network failures so they can adapt, and would like the ability
> to make their own decisions about which links to use (given multiple
> choices). but most apps are not FT, and to those that aren't FT,
> address stability under changing network conditions is a boon.
Thus, most apps are taken care of by the transport layer.
READ THE DRAFT.
Masataka Ohta
