On 11-nov-04, at 2:50, Joe Touch wrote:
So, are you suggesting that if we want to maintain any multihoming bindings,
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.
I completely agree. That's why the multihoming mechanism shouldn't do keepalives on idle sessions. If the opposite behavior is desired, applications or transports should do keepalives.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature