Re: multihoming, was IPv10
2016-12-30 18:25:45
On 31/12/2016 11:20, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Michel Py wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote :
Which is exactly why we have to make multi-prefix multihoming work out of
the box. Which is why we
have RFC 7157 and RFC 8028 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing, and we're
not done yet.
We have missed the delivery date by 14 years.
I wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00
in April 2000 and I know it is stupid to use source routing for
multihoming. So, never deliver it.
All we need is transport/application layer capability to treat
multiple source and destination addresses and implementations
of such TCP has been available since 2003 or so, more than 14
years ago.
I am very suspicious of any claim about "all we need" in this area, but
I have written about this in some detail elsewhere:
http://www.sigcomm.org/node/3484
Brian
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, (continued)
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John R Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- RE: multihoming, was IPv10, Michel Py
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10,
Brian E Carpenter <=
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Octavio Alvarez
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Stewart Bryant
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Jeff Tantsura
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John C Klensin
|
|
|