>
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 6:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Getting back to unicast initiated sessions I would still
> > like to see some mechanism (as low in the stack as possible)
> > which would allow long running session to survive routing
> > changes.
>
> You're speaking in this thread. Did you take a look at the proposal
> that Eric Nordmark, I, and the grow folks have discussed about a
> care-of-address that would give a long term fixed address to the server
> in question? Answering that question is where we started out.
care-of-address would be overkill for somethings and
quite a reasonable solution for others. If it could be
made selectable on a per/socket basis (I havn't looked
at how implemetation do this at present) I suspect this
will meet most of what would be required.
In other words we would not want to do this for DNS/UDP but
for DNS/TCP it would be acceptable even though it would only
be really required for long running AXFR's (multi-megabyte).
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
