nanog mailing list archives
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:35:00 -0600
Thus spake "Barney Wolff" <barney () databus com>
Perhaps it is time to replace TCP with SCTP, where multihoming is notincompatible with PA addressing. If done as a socket shim, so applicationsdon't have to be aware of it unless they want to be, it would appear to solve all of these problems. How much would it add to the pain of the v4-v6 transition, to just bite the bullet and do tcp-sctp at the same time? I'd sure rather be a network troubleshooter going through that than living with NAT forever.
Almost no host OSes support SCTP today, which is the major barrier; it took a decade to get IPv6 widely implemented in hosts, and there's no reason to think SCTP implementation would be as fast or faster.
That aside, SCTP sockets and TCP sockets are not created the same way nor behave the same way from the application's view. An API change would be needed to make this transparent to apps. Also, there's no way for one host to know if another supports SCTP _and_ is running SCTP-capable apps without actually attempting a connection, which costs time.
It seems easier to try to back-port SCTP's multihoming features to TCP somehow than to deploy an entirely new transport protocol. It's unfortunate this wasn't addressed at the time IPng was being designed.
S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws theK5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Current thread:
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?], (continued)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Christian Kuhtz (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Kevin Loch (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Kevin Loch (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Barney Wolff (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Kevin Loch (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 20)
- RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] David Schwartz (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] william(at)elan.net (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Jerry Pasker (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 21)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 21)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Kevin Loch (Nov 21)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Petri Helenius (Nov 21)