[41221] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi-homing fixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sat Sep 1 04:58:53 2001
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:59:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0108311045290.4569-100000@da1server.martin.fl.us>
Message-ID: <20010901105404.F5044-100000@sequoia.muada.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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.
