> On the other hand, I'm very worried about specifying a host-router
> protocol, as it is a new protocol -- contrary to working operational
> practise -- and has a number of difficult issue to tackle with, most
> important of them perhaps the security/authorization and interaction
> with the routing protocols.
I thought you just agree with me that the security/auth issue is independent
of the protocol used.
> I fail to see an issue with multi-interfaced hosts: all implementations I
> know have an explicit toggle to disable/enable packet forwarding between
> interfaces ("routing").
I wasn't concerned about that but accidentually getting the host
to pass routes in the routing protocol between its interfaces.
> > > - the high number of packets exchanged before commencing with real TCP
> > > traffic
> >
> > And the alternative is?
>
> Possibly some TCP modification. I'm not sure if there are others.
What about UDP, SCTP, DDP?
Minimizing transport awareness of anycast seems like
a reasonable approach to me.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
