On Feb 19, 2008 10:08 AM, Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't see that Eliot - it seems close to Shim6 in some ways, although > here Mark is advocating a "shim' at the session / transport level of the > protocol stack rather than at the IP level. I have my concerns at the > robustness and effeciency of a session level approach and see more merit > at the IP level, but thats a personal perspective. But thats orthogonal > to the properties of a routing system.
Well, it's not really orthogonal, because they have very different emergent behaviour, so leave different amounts of work for the routing system to do. The specific reason for layer 4 is that you need to stripe data across multiple *congestion controlled* paths for the traffic to self-traffic-engineer. Only then do the bytes to be transfered actually move away from the congested paths to the uncongested paths in a stable manner. I don't believe you can get this unless the congestion control part of the stack is aware of the different paths/addresses and load-balancing across them. Cheers, Mark -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
