[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI

Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Roger Jorgensen wrote:
<SNIP>
>> for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real
>> solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those
>> possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers etc,
>> then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us
>> multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create
>> connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the
>> session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything
>> either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it
>> use the extended header of IPv6.
> 
> Yea, that's known as SCTP.

I am always wondering why SCTP is not taking off. From the few tests I
did it works perfectly well, the location/identifier separation is
pretty cleanly handled in DNS and inside the protocol for quick updates.
Unfortunately not much software supports it at the moment. One way to
fix that is to add a small proxy/BIA tool which changes TCP+UDP into
SCTP. This works for server and client side. But nobody wants to do this
for some mysterious reason.

Greets,
 Jeroen



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 238 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051126/d3047f3f/attachment.sig>