In message <54f611a6.2000...@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter writes: > > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7924-6182 > > > > On 04/03/2015 05:54, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: > > > >> I think there are two completely separate mechanisms being discussed > >> here: the need for rapid failover to a previously known alternative > >> address for your partner device, and discovering the alternative > >> addresses of your partner. > > > > Agree. > > > >> The one thing I think that is still missing in the discussion is > >> caching in the name space. Whether name resolution of the remote > >> partner address be done via mDNS, DNS, or monitoring the currently > >> established channel between partner nodes like in shim6, whatever. > > > > I think we need this done via the existing channel, a la MP-TCP and SHIM6. > > Much as I love shim6, it's currently a broken solution because most > firewalls drop packets with shim6 extension headers. And it requires > both hosts to be updated to be effective.
Which requires the two ends that want to use shim6 to upgrade their firewalls. It isn't impossible to use shim6. If people had stopped complaining and started developing firewalls that handled options better we would be able to deploy them at the moment. It isn't impossible to do this at wire speed. > Much as I love MPTCP, it only helps TCP sessions. And it requires both > hosts to be updated to be effective. > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
