nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links)
From: Douglas Otis <dotis () mail-abuse org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:15:31 -0700
On 6/25/12 10:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:SCTP is coming along, and it has a lot of promise.Doesn't SCTP "suffer" from the same problem as SHIM6 was said to be suffering from, ie that now all of a sudden end systems control where packets go and there is going to be a bunch of people on this list complaining that they no longer can do "traffic engineering"?
Dear Mikael, SCTP permits multiple provider support of specific hosts where instant fail-over is needed. When DNS returns multiple IP addresses, an application calls sctp_connectx() with this list combined into an association endpoint belonging to a single host. This eliminates a need for PI addresses and related router table growth when high availability service becomes popular. Rather than having multi-homing implemented at the router, SCTP fail-over does not require 20 second delays nor will fail-over cause a sizable shift in traffic that might introduce other instabilities. Although not all details related to multi-homing remain hidden, SCTP offers several significant advantages related to performance and reliability. SCTP can isolate applications over fewer ports. Unlike TCP, SCTP can combine thousands of independent streams into a single association and port. SCTP offers faster setup and can eliminate head-of-queue blocking and the associated buffering involved. SCTP also compensates for reduced Ethernet error detection rates when Jumbo frames are used. Providers able to control multiple routers will likely prefer router based methods. A router approach will not always offer a superior solution nor will it limit router table growth, but traffic engineering should remain feasible when SCTP is used instead.
I don't mind. I wish more would use SCTP so it would get wider use. I also wish <http://mosh.mit.edu/> would have used SCTP instead of trying to invent that part again (the transport part of it at least).
Perhaps MIT could have implemented SCTP over UDP as a starting point. An adoption impediment has been desktop OS vendors. This may change once SCTP's advantages become increasingly apparent with the rise of data rates and desires for greater resiliency and security. Regards, Douglas Otis
Current thread:
- IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links), (continued)
- IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) Douglas Otis (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) Christopher Morrow (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) Douglas Otis (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) Christopher Morrow (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) William Herrin (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) Douglas Otis (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) William Herrin (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) William Herrin (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) Cameron Byrne (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 25)
- Re: IPv6 Multi-homing (was IPv6 /64 links) Douglas Otis (Jun 26)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Owen DeLong (Jun 21)
- Re: ipv6 book recommendations? Cutler James R (Jun 06)
- Re: ipv6 book recommendations? valdis . kletnieks (Jun 06)