Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links)

[Douglas Otis <dotis () mail-abuse org>]

On 6/25/12 10:17 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> 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.  It 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.  Conversely,
> > 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.  It seems OS vendors rather than
> > the IETF hampered progress in this area.  Why band-aid on a
> > solved problem?
>
> can I use sctp to do the facebooks?

Dear Christopher,

Not now, but you could.  SCTP permits faster page loads and more
efficient use of bandwidth.  OS vendors could embrace SCTP to achieve
safer and faster networks also better able to scale.  Instead, vendors
are hacking HTTP to provide experimental protocols like SPDY which
requires extensions like:

http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-00

The Internet should use more than port 80 and port 443.  Is extending
entrenched TCP cruft really taking the Internet to a better and safer
place?

Regards,
Douglas Otis