On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Scott Brim <scott.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > Excerpts from William Herrin on Mon, Nov 16, 2009 09:24:36PM -0500: >> 2. Host modification. The inbound NAT adds an IP extension with the >> original destination address. The host echos this in the return >> packet, providing the outbound NAT with the info he needs to set the >> correct external source address. > > Another possibility is to decouple establishment of higher layer state > from the IP locators the packets come tagged with. > > For example, if they are using TCP and the correct tokens are provided > with SYN etc., then the result of having packets sourced from > "unexpected" locators is that endpoints learn new locators that could > be used for the session -- not that the session can't be initiated.
Hi Scott, That would be a host modification. Speaking of which, has anyone in this WG considered setting aside the great debate about architectures long enough to try to compose some consensus recommendations targetted at the Multipath TCP working group stating what exactly the routing folks would like to see them achieve? If we'd like them to carry a decoupled session ID in every packet and deal with it successfully when the IP address for a particular flow changes unexpectedly, we might want to mention that before they finish. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
