Subject: RE: a few comments on anycast mechanisms

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:09:32 +0100

> 
  > TCP has the problem that it simply can't be used with an 
  > anycast address
  > without changing the protocol or somehow handling the binding
  > transparently on L3 (as in MIPv6). UDP doesn't have this problem; at
  > most the applications need to be changed to react correctly to peer
  > address change.

=> But is this the only problem? I mean even if there is 
a way of making apps using UDP react correctly to address
changes, is it not possible that some apps would want to
make sure that they are still talking to the _same_peer_
and not just the same application on another host?

  > Some of the problems relate to figuring out what 
  > constitutes a session
  > with a UDP application. 

=> There was a reference made that the draft deals with
stateful applications.

Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mika Liljeberg <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Feb 2003 22:34:56 +0200

> and not just the same application on another host?

I expect so. That's what I meant when I was talking about authenticating
the binding. Other applications might not care and might prefer a quick,
if insecure, redirect instead.

> => There was a reference made that the draft deals with

Indeed. How does one recognize a stateful application on L3? [Unless we
require the application to indicate this explicitly.]

	MikaL