Re: multihoming

2021-11-27 Thread Owen DeLong via NANOG
> On Nov 25, 2021, at 12:06 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 11/25/21 11:54 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> Christopher Morrow writes: >> >>> Also, for completeness, MP-TCP clearly does not help UDP or ICMP flows... >>> nor IPSEC nor GRE nor... >>> unless you HTTP over MP-TCP and encap

Re: multihoming

2021-11-25 Thread Michael Thomas
On 11/25/21 11:54 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: Christopher Morrow writes: Also, for completeness, MP-TCP clearly does not help UDP or ICMP flows... nor IPSEC nor GRE nor... unless you HTTP over MP-TCP and encap UDP/ICMP/GRE/IPSEC over that! IP over DNS has been a thing forever. IP over DoH

Re: multihoming

2021-11-25 Thread Bjørn Mork
Christopher Morrow writes: > Also, for completeness, MP-TCP clearly does not help UDP or ICMP flows... > nor IPSEC nor GRE nor... > unless you HTTP over MP-TCP and encap UDP/ICMP/GRE/IPSEC over that! IP over DNS has been a thing forever. IP over DoH should work just fine. > Talk about layer

Re: multihoming

2021-11-24 Thread Masataka Ohta via NANOG
Baldur Norddahl wrote: Are you proposing SCTP? There is sadly not much more hope for widespread adoption of that as of IPv6. My ID describes the architectural framework both for IPv4 and IPv6. Modification to TCP is discussed, for example, in:

Re: multihoming

2021-11-24 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:12 PM Geoff Huston wrote: > > > > On 25 Nov 2021, at 7:57 am, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > > > Are you proposing SCTP? There is sadly not much more hope for widespread > adoption of that as of IPv6. > > > > or perhaps MP-TCP? :) or shim6? > > Shim6 died a

Re: multihoming

2021-11-24 Thread Geoff Huston
> On 25 Nov 2021, at 7:57 am, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > Are you proposing SCTP? There is sadly not much more hope for widespread > adoption of that as of IPv6. > > or perhaps MP-TCP? :) or shim6? Shim6 died a comprehensive death many yers ago. I recall NANOG played a role in it's

Re: multihoming

2021-11-24 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 9:12 AM Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 08:16, Masataka Ohta < > mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > >> So, as modifying end systems is inevitable, there is >> no reason not to support full end to end multihoming >> including modifications to

Re: multihoming

2021-11-24 Thread Saku Ytti
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 16:16, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Are you proposing SCTP? There is sadly not much more hope for widespread > adoption of that as of IPv6. If you use Apple, you use MP-TCP, for better UX while using both mobile and wifi. SCTP is no good, because you cannot transition

Re: multihoming

2021-11-24 Thread Baldur Norddahl
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 08:16, Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > So, as modifying end systems is inevitable, there is > no reason not to support full end to end multihoming > including modifications to support multiple addresses > by TCP and some applications. > >

Re: multihoming

2021-11-23 Thread Masataka Ohta
Dave Taht wrote: The proper solution is to have end to end multihoming: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-02.txt I'd never read that. We'd made openwrt in particular use "source specific routing" for ipv6 by default, many years ago, but I don't know to what extent