[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Transport level multihoming
I am convinced that we can help alleviate the TL issue with SCTP for IPv6.
And get it deployed in 2 years (some of us have started shipping it now as
product not prototype). Also it is being used for SMS for test UMTS
environments now. Also I believe SCTP can be used by small memory
footprint devices too for IPv6.
Some of us will go look at a shim for AF_SCTP esp for IPv6 so app that
does ftp (example app only) can use SCTP without a change in source code.
But part of that work is to see the cost and effect to a vendor library
and sys call code if it can be done in production manner and not break
binary compatibility with IPv4/IPv6 app. Don't know till we try. But I
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:
> > >
> > > The site level approach considers the address space as a skeleton upon which
> > > you can apply the flesh of routing. No matter how you shake it, the skeleton
> > > is rigid as it is based on relatively static allocation policies.
> > I am not saying that we should abandon the existing routing architecture.
> > In fact, we would be exploiting its excellent scaling and
> > routing properties.
> Its what?? Haven't you read draft-iab-bgparch-01.txt? We don't have any
> scaling left to play with. That's why we are here.
> > All translated addresses would be providing is a
> > sticky point of reference for a flow around which fault-tolerance through
> > routing, and scalability through aggregation will be achieved.
> We invented IPv6 to avoid the need for address translation and all its
> attendant problems. The argument for a multi6 solution at transport level
> is to *deal with* the existence of multiple addresses and precisely to avoid
> translation. There is an alternative, which is the type of architected
> address translation implied by 8+8, GSE etc but please let's avoid painting
> ourselves into a corner that requires both transport layer gymnastics and NAT;
> that would be a catastrophe.