RE: [Tsvwg] multiaddressing

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wesley Eddy [mailto:weddy@grc.nasa.gov] 
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 1:41 PM
> To: tsvwg@ietf.org
> Subject: [Tsvwg] multiaddressing
> 
> 
> Architectures that don't include such wedges are what we were 
> considering in draft-eddy-tlmarch-00 (presented last week).  
> The idea of rapidly fixing the transport's path estimation 
> variables is roughly visible in draft-swami-tcp-lmdr-04.  For 
> architectures that *do* include wedges, some similar form of 
> signaling and responding to path changes is still _required_. 
>  Signaling has to occur both between the wedge and transport 
> locally and remotely, so that both half-connections can be 
> fixed.  Responses to these signals will have to be 
> implemented per-transport protocol.
> 
> It's not entirely clear to me how we can combine the 
> strengths of a multiaddressing wedge layer with the 
> rapid-response of path property estimates that we can have 
> without the wedge in a transport layer mobility scheme.  Thoughts?

What is not clear?  Whether to use the LMDR techniques, or how
to invoke them?  It doesn't seem that invoking them should be
much of a problem-- wedge layers can keep track of when addresses
change and do an internal trigger notification.  In fact, the 
proposed LMDR option might not be needed in such a case, and it
can all be handled locally, independently by both sides of the
connection.

What is the status of LMDR?  Has it been proposed for any WG
activity?  

Tom

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg