On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2014 11:22, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > Shouldn't we reduce the amount of cross-posting at some point?
> >
> >>> mptcp, I'm told, is likely to show up in Apple and Google products and
> >>> infrastructure, and my idea (and many others) is that you don't always
> have
> >>> to pick the perfect address for the SYN, just one that works, but
> rather one
> >>> can add better addresses as one discovers them.
> >
> >> But bad luck if you need UDP.
> >
> >> Some form of intelligent probing does seem to be the answer,
> >
> > I'd like to attract your attention to the work that Matthieu Boutier has
> > been doing on mosh, Keith Winstein's UDP-based ssh replacement:
> >
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.mosh.devel/749
> >
> > Boutier's version of mosh builds connections across all
> source/destination
> > pairs, and picks the one with lowest RTT.
>
> Sounds interesting. In the ideal world, that would be a pluggable
> policy algorithm. Lowest RTT may not always be the best choice.
> NAROS* suggested distributing policy from a single source, for
> example.
>
> The point about shim6, of course, is that allows you to change
> horses in midstream without bothering the transport layer.
> It's a real shame we don't know how to deploy it, especially
> for homenets where nobody manages the routing policy.
>
What were the problems with getting shim6 deployed?
There appear to have been
a Linux implementation, and if the idea now has merit, that is enough of
the market (which is very responsive)
to get significant deployment, and to do so quickly. (codel/fq_codel went
from concept to shipping code is under 3 months, with wide test deployment
in a year, and now becoming default). We aren't talking about 5 year
product cycles any more.
As to policy, the home routers themselves give us a place to enable people
to state the policy they want (e.g. only use the LTE upstream if the cheap
broadband service is unavailable...).
- Jim
> Brian
>
> * C. Launois, O. Bonaventure, and M. Lobelle. The NAROS approach for IPv6
> multihoming with traffic engineering. volume 2811 of Lecture Notes in
> Computer
> Science, pages 112–121. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003.
>
> > It's a work in progress --
> > there are multiple versions, and Matthieu has yet to decide which
> > implementation he's going to submit for inclusion in mainline mosh.
> >
> > We hope to write that stuff down when Matthieu has decided which is the
> > "right" version, but I'm not promising any hard deadlines -- we have a
> lot
> > of stuff that we want to write down.
> >
> >> but certainly that needs to be generic because we cannot expect
> >> all apps developers to reinvent it.
> >
> > Uh-huh. But there's only one thing that's worse than generalising from
> > one example -- it's generalising from zero eexamples.
> >
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-naderi-ipv6-probing recently.
> >
> > I'll have a look, thanks for the pointer.
> >
> > -- Juliusz
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
