nanog mailing list archives
Re: multi-homing fixes
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:59:24 +0200 (CEST)
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Greg Maxwell wrote:
addresses, so when one path goes down, it will use another. (SCTP is useless as a TCP replacement, though.) And there have been successful
I've been being good about keeping my multi6 advocacy off of nanog, but I have to correct here: SCTP can be used as a full replacement of TCP as it is a strict superset, it also can replace UDP for many applications.
That is like replacing passenger trains by freight trains. After all, aren't passengers just one type of freight? SCTP has a whole bunch of features that are of no use to our current applications, that all expect TCP. It would be very unwise to switch to a new transport protocol just because it has one desirable feature that can very easily be built in TCP. Two modules that do 99% the same thing but with different code is bad software design. And SCTP is not backwards compatible with older TCP implementations or access filters or firewalls or anything.
Current thread:
- Re: multi-homing fixes Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 01)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Joel Baker (Sep 01)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 01)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Joel Baker (Sep 01)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: multi-homing fixes Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 01)
- RE: multi-homing fixes Martin, Christian (Sep 01)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Pete Kruckenberg (Sep 01)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Paul Vixie (Sep 02)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Alex Bligh (Sep 02)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Paul A Vixie (Sep 02)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Paul Vixie (Sep 02)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Joel Baker (Sep 01)
