Hello, Tommy, On 02/13/2018 08:04 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > Yes, I think this topic is very relevant to the work that can be done in > updated transport APIs, specifically around Path Selection. This is > relevant both for initial connection establishment (when we’re racing > various transport protocols across different paths, we need to know > which local addresses to use), and maintenance of connections that > support migration or multipath (which addresses can they use for new > flows). The address selection can also be inferred from other properties > of the transport connection, such as how long-lived the connection needs > to be. > > Fernando, what’s your plan for your draft? It seems like a great > reference for our drafts, and something we need to consider in our list > of application preferences when creating transport connections.
Thanks so much for your comments! I this work is of interest to the TAPS WG, we could try to move this one forward in this wg, and also think of a subsequent I-D with recommendations (more on this later). Thoughts? Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
