Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] multiaddressing

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:34:47 -0800

>From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>>Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>>How do applications learn of and propagate multiple address sets 
>>across which they can open multiple transport streams and load balance

>>across them?
>
>Why should they? If the addresses "mean" the same thing, that ought to 
>be a single socket, and the network-layer delivery ought to figure out 
>there's more than one way there (ala multi6 shim).

I'm not tracking with you here, Joe. Perhaps you could clarify what you
are thinking a bit more (e.g., what stack model are you assuming?). For
example, thinking in terms of the Seamoby work, for example, how can the
transport "know" that two addresses mean the same thing? I expect you to
answer that "the shim tells them." Is this your answer or are you
thinking something else? If this is your answer, then what functions are
you assuming the shim is able to perform? How do these shim functions
interface to the IP layer and to the transport layer?

--Eric

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:02:44 -0500

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:34:47AM -0800, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
> How do these shim functions interface to the IP layer and to the
> transport layer?

That's a question I've been (poorly) trying to ask, with the point being
that we need to think about this interface in TSVWG.  The shims will be
interfacing with the transport and as the transport group, we'll need to
make sure that the interface they provide is adequate for the things
transports do.

-Wes

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:30:30 -0800

> interface to the IP layer and to the transport layer?

See multi6 WG. They not only have answers to these questions, but drafts 
of solutions they're working on.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:32:34 -0800

> make sure that the interface they provide is adequate for the things

It would be useful to review the docs of the shim subgroup of multi6. 
They're just now being submitted to be WG docs.

Joe

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:17:51 -0500

> They're just now being submitted to be WG docs.

Specifically, draft-nordmark-multi6dt-shim-00.txt lists one of the shim's
goals as:
"""
    o Have no impact on upper layer protocols in general and on
      transport protocols in particular.
"""

-Wes

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:29:40 -0800

>       transport protocols in particular.

No impact means no detrimental impact. It'd be useless if there's no 
benefit. Granted, they're not working on using multiple connections at 
once, but they are doing all the rest of what was mentioned - including 
shifting addresses as needed and potentially informing a transport or 
application that wants to know (AFAIR). I.e., adding muxing there seems 
the obvious place, rather than at the transport or the application.

Joe