nanog mailing list archives
Re: multihoming
From: Masataka Ohta via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:55:27 +0900
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Are you proposing SCTP? There is sadly not much more hope for widespread adoption of that as of IPv6.
My ID describes the architectural framework both for IPv4 and IPv6. Modification to TCP is discussed, for example, in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-arifumi-tcp-mh-00 I still think something like that is necessary before IPv4 global routing table size become 16M (ignoring loopback/multicast/ClassE). Christopher Morrow wrote: > reading the ID that masataka referenced, it sounded very much like > shim6 about ~4 yrs prior to shim6's "invention". No, not at all. > I also don't recall > seeing the draft referenced during the shim6 conversations. Despite my ID saying: All the other processing can be performed by transport layer (typically in kernel) using default or application specific timing of TCP. Without TCP, applications must be able to detect loss of connectivity in application dependent way shim6 is wrongly architected to address the issue at the *connectionless* IP layer, where there is no proper period for timeout. Also, transport/application layer information such as TCP sequence numbers may offer proper security. Notion of connection (including half one such as DNS query/reply at the application layer) is essential for proper state maintenance. Similar layering violation also occurred to network layer PMTUD, which is why it is rather harmful than useful. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- multihoming, (continued)
- multihoming Dave Taht (Nov 23)
- Re: multihoming Masataka Ohta (Nov 23)
- Re: multihoming Baldur Norddahl (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Saku Ytti (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Christopher Morrow (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Geoff Huston (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Christopher Morrow (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Bjørn Mork (Nov 25)
- Re: multihoming Michael Thomas (Nov 25)
- Re: multihoming Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: multihoming Masataka Ohta via NANOG (Nov 24)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Eliot Lear (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Lincoln Dale (Nov 22)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Dave Taht (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)