[154084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Mon Jun 25 13:18:22 2012
In-Reply-To: <4FE89B37.4030905@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:17:24 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> wrote:
> On 6/25/12 7:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It would have been better if IETF had actually solved this instead
>> of punting on it when developing IPv6.
>
> Dear Owen,
>
> The IETF offered a HA solution that operates at the transport level. =A0I=
t
> solves jumbo frame error detection rate issues, head of queue
> blocking, instant fail-over, better supports high data rates with
> lower overhead, offers multi-homing transparently across
> multiple providers, offers fast setup and anti-packet source spoofing.
> The transport is SCTP, used by every cellular tower and for
> media distribution.
>
> This transport's improved error detection is now supported in hardware
> by current network adapters and processors. =A0Conversely, TCP suffers
> from high undetected stuck bit errors, head of queue blocking, complex
> multi-homing, slow setup, high process overhead and is prone to source
> spoofing. =A0It seems OS vendors rather than the IETF hampered progress i=
n
> this area. =A0Why band-aid on a solved problem?
can I use sctp to do the facebooks?
