Re: [multipathtcp] Multipath deployment and fate sharing

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Laganier, Julien wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> On 14 dec 2009, at 17:38, Laganier, Julien wrote:
>>> With IPv4 of course the situation would be different due to the IPv4
>>> address space exhaustion, presence of NATs, and DHCP allocation with
>>> short term leases. So in IPv4 we can't rule out situation #2, and thus
>>> we want to make fate sharing the default IPv4.
>> I don't see that. With NAT you don't know who you're going to encounter
>> behind a given address, anyway.
> 
> This is a valid point. 
> 
>Thus it seems that whether or not MPTCP implements fate sharing, a host
> can never be sure who's really behind a given IPv4 address. Essentially
> the address semantic is broken end-to-end.
> 
> For purely local matters, fate-sharing can be used to maintain some
> applications' expectations regarding the relationship between local
> addresses and the transport connections that are bound on them.

Apps have those expectations - local or remote. That's why some apps
break when they go through NATs. Let's not compound that situation with
by assuming fate sharing can be ignored.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAksmec8ACgkQE5f5cImnZrudZACgun8pMImwMSJ7TlmRrQBSnWP7
AuAAoJctRza7cW2sriaHz/jrRWix8erc
=gZUU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----