On 08/07/2010 17:40 EDT, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Ran, > > On 2010-08-08 04:26, RJ Atkinson wrote: > ... >> When ILNP is in use, then the transport-layer is decoupled >> from the Locator. For example, the transport-layer pseudo-header >> checksum only includes the Identifier values, never the Locator >> values. Hence, a single transport-layer session can be >> carried in ILNP packets using multiple Locators concurrently >> (obviously: one Locator pair in any single given packet). > > That's interesting. Have you studied the relationship between this > and the MPTCP work, not to mention co-existence of ILNP and SCTP? > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/charter/ > > Brian
Upper layer multihoming/multipathing (e.g. SCTP concurrent multipath transport) works fine as long as lower layer shims or encapsulations don't hide the information it needs, i.e. the prefixes to use. In the case where an endpoint is singly connected with two PA prefixes, as long as the transport layer can use both prefixes MPTCP or SCTP can work. This begs the question of how routing is done through the site network so that those prefixes go out the right upstream interfaces. Source-based routing? Tony Hain's ICMP? Anyway, ILNP per se doesn't need to interfere. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
