Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote on 02/02/2010 10:00 EST: > > Do we need network aliveness detection or is this functionality > > something that an endpoint could take care of? > > An endpoint is interested if the remote endpoint is alive or not > > When you say "network aliveness detection" I gather you mean 'detection of > endpoint liveness by the network'? If so, yes, I agree, we should probably > not have the 'network' (by which I assume you mean routers) doing liveness > detection. > > > if there is a problem the endpoint could try another path to the remote > > endpoint > > The problem is that in the current state of the architecture (in particular, > the routing architecture), the host can't really do this. Yes, in those cases > where the destination has multiple locators (because of either site or host > multi-homing), use of another locator _may_ bypass the problem. > > However, this is a degenerate case: not all endpoints will have multiple > locators; the problem may be close to the source, so that different > destination locators all still cross the same failure point, etc, etc. Thus, > in many cases where there is a usable alternative path, that path with not be > discoverable through use of an alternative locator for the destination. > > So the real solution to that particular issue is a better routing > architecture.
Noel, how would _routing_ determine whether a different path to a particular individual endpoint should be tried (by either an endpoint or an intermediate router)? Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
