On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Teco Boot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > |> / RFC 1887 4.4.2 is obviously not functional with *currently deployed > |> / network stacks*. It would need the kind of software described in > |> / strategy B or H in order to be viable. Or do you disagree? > |> > |> It depends. > | > |If it's conditionally functional and the conditions aren't met then > |it's not functional. Right? > > Not agreed at all!! > Why block a good solution for certain use cases, because there are (few?) > other use cases that cannot use it? > Why force an imperfect solution that has (strong?) disadvantages for some > (few?) use cases?
Teco, I think you might be missing my point. I wasn't making a value judgment on the reasonableness of using multiple addresses in order to multihome. I was simply observing that the users have spoken and what they've said is that the currently available tools and protocols are unacceptable. Multiple-PA multihoming is conditional on a number of factors which, in current practice, aren't true. So if we want a multiple-PA solution like strategy B or H, its necessary to rearrange things so that those conditions -are- true. Saying "go use it" when there's not an adequate toolset to go use is really no different than the "do nothing" strategy. Anyway, if you really want to rehash the "why's" in detail, that's a subject for another thread. > By the way, the term SID could be somewhat misleading. Lets distinguish > transport layer ID (connection ID) from session ID. Would you expand on that? I'm thinking of a session as an ID that conceptually speaking, lasts from the TCP SYN to the TCP FIN. Is there a better definition of session? What's the definition of transport layer ID? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
