Re: [Banana] diff (banana load distribution, next-hop selection of multipath)

[Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]>]

Note:  While this is interesting, we are talking about solutions requirements at this point (or perhaps charter language)…

Joe, with the explanation you’ve received, do you now think you understand the problem?  I’ll try to update the problem description to make this clearer.  Could you help to make sure my new language makes this clear?

Thanks,
Margaret


> On Feb 4, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 4, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Personally, I would consider algorithms that run within a single box to decide whether to aggregate a particular flow...
> 
> Actually, there might be a couple of exceptions to my statement that this could be implementation-specific.
> 
> We might want to specifically state how "BANANA Boxes" would detect a BANANA flow and avoid aggregating it again.  We might also want to define how they should detect some other flows that already have multi-path capability, like end-to-end MPTCP and exempt those flows from BANANA processing. 
> 
> But, I think the performance/reliability-related decisions about whether to split a given flow (that is not specifically called out in the standard) across multiple available access networks should be implementation-specific.
> 
> Does that makes sense?
> 
> Margaret
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Banana mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana