[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10-nov-04, at 16:16, <email@example.com> wrote:
So, are you suggesting that if we want to maintain any multihoming
we should rely on application layer keep alives?
Certainly not. What I'm saying is that if applications want to be sure a
session remains available, they should send keepalives. Then, if the
session goes away, the app gets to hear about it without much delay.
That's not true for TCP connections today, or anything below it - the
session remains available until it is closed, even if unused. Doesn't
this then change the semantics of 'application silence'?
I don't want unused sessions to consume bandwidth switching around, but
they shouldn't go away per se.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature