[84358] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Mon Sep 12 00:37:43 2005
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 06:31:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0509110624490.26672@parapet.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> cause each end node knows about the upstream network 'problems' so well?
> giving them full routes too are we? ( I don't want to fight this
> arguement here, I'm just making a rhetorical question, one I hope there
> will be a presentation this nanog to also argue over :) )
Considering convergence time right now of our current BGP based system,
firing off a beacon packet all ways you know to the other host (if you
yourself have multiple or if the other end have multiple, or both) if your
packet stream has been interrupted for 2 seconds the current path between
the hosts, is probably much quicker anyway.
I have no idea if this is in the current shim model, just thinking out
loud.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
