Would you be willing to see the 100% ban removed from the draft standard and substitute text to the effect of that above included, with follow-up work in grow-or-wherever to spell out those procedures?
On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:19 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 6:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Getting back to unicast initiated sessions I would still like to see some mechanism (as low in the stack as possible) which would allow long running session to survive routing changes.
You're speaking in this thread. Did you take a look at the proposal
that Eric Nordmark, I, and the grow folks have discussed about a
care-of-address that would give a long term fixed address to the server
in question? Answering that question is where we started out.
care-of-address would be overkill for somethings and quite a reasonable solution for others. If it could be made selectable on a per/socket basis (I havn't looked at how implemetation do this at present) I suspect this will meet most of what would be required.
In other words we would not want to do this for DNS/UDP but for DNS/TCP it would be acceptable even though it would only be really required for long running AXFR's (multi-megabyte).
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
