[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shim - transport/app communication
On 16-mrt-05, at 12:44, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
I was wondering what would
happen, for example, when these addresses are being advertised out in
the network as a part of some application protocol.
This is one of the reasons why it's a good idea to have the addresses
that are exposed to the application be addresses that are actually
reachable (most of the time). This means that as long as there aren't
any failures, referrals work just as good or bad as they work now.
Obviously when the initially used address becomes unreachable, the shim
will move the session to another set of addresses and now trying to
contact the original address will probably not be problem free. But
it's still better than what you get without the shim.
Another example, I guess that bind() with IP address should still
the interface used for the socket, right? In principle, if assuming
ULIDs, the parameter address would represent the host, not the
That's a very interesting change in viewpoint, which may or may not
have important consequences. Note that we often give routers loopback
interfaces with real addresses (not ::1) exactly because they need an
address that remains reachable despite the status of any one interface.