multihoming

Thu Nov 25 05:55:27 UTC 2021

Baldur Norddahl wrote:

> Are you proposing SCTP? There is sadly not much more hope for widespread
> adoption of that as of IPv6.

My ID describes the architectural framework both for IPv4 and IPv6.

Modification to TCP is discussed, for example, in:

	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-arifumi-tcp-mh-00

I still think something like that is necessary before IPv4 global
routing table size become 16M (ignoring loopback/multicast/ClassE).

Christopher Morrow wrote:

 > reading the ID that masataka referenced, it sounded very much like
 > shim6 about ~4 yrs prior to shim6's "invention".

No, not at all.

 > I also don't recall
 > seeing the draft referenced during the shim6 conversations.

Despite my ID saying:

    All the other processing can be
    performed by transport layer (typically in kernel) using
    default or application specific timing of TCP.

    Without TCP, applications must be able to detect loss of
    connectivity in application dependent way

shim6 is wrongly architected to address the issue at the
*connectionless* IP layer, where there is no proper period
for timeout. Also, transport/application layer information
such as TCP sequence numbers may offer proper security.

Notion of connection (including half one such as DNS
query/reply at the application layer) is essential
for proper state maintenance.

Similar layering violation also occurred to network
layer PMTUD, which is why it is rather harmful than
useful.

						Masataka Ohta