Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Tue, 13 November 2012 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D10721F84F6 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:39:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grIp8+1O+9Gq for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF7121F84EB for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:39:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.20]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NwbQ1k0090S2fkCA1wfY5z; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:39:32 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn6-539.cisco.com ([128.107.239.233]) by omta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NwdK1k00G52qHCY8VwdNX2; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:37:30 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <CAFgODJfBX0R90oiYnxWrgC1oyr5ZPTZJA23WWu=Dbqu=xmyYTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:37:19 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EA48576E-4953-4408-982F-9D48497F8975@tony.li>
References: <20121112234012.05F8E18C0CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <CAFgODJcP1zvwRJukJdnqjSR-78XAMB1nSxL32gjUQB+NqpgESg@mail.gmail.com> <50A18F75.8060001@joelhalpern.com> <CAFgODJcDAzaYPrWFEJhgeCjnN_M9tdd+pdHTiccd=Dz=1mYrLg@mail.gmail.com> <EC8FD781-E416-4AE6-BA99-F74FE2DDA14D@tony.li> <CAFgODJfMBJBxNJ_M1_L=K0f2DpbZvzOBUgLZ6sT+-y+JevGeSg@mail.gmail.com> <27E72BC2-C84D-469F-9667-7A749567B477@tony.li> <CAFgODJfBX0R90oiYnxWrgC1oyr5ZPTZJA23WWu=Dbqu=xmyYTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:39:33 -0000

> On one hand, having each hosts in a site deal with multiple PA prefixes won't be much fun.


Fortunately, only the network administrator HAS to deal with the multiple prefixes, setting up one per provider.  After that, everything within the network can be automated.


> On the other, the same connection resilience could be achieved with some sort of session management function on top of TCP, without resorting to LIS.


Absolutely true.  But then it might require application changes, which we'd like to avoid.  It would also not be intrinsic in the architecture.


> I'm still doubting whether LIS is the right answer to seamless multihoming. It's only my problem, perhaps, not yours.


Doubts are healthy, and we learn more by doing.

Tony