> That's why I think it makes more sense to backport the SCTP multihoming
> features to TCP so all TCP apps can use them without having to be
> changed, or even better: contain the changes in a separate shim layer
> so that all transport protocols can become address agile without having
> to be changed.
>
> As far as I can tell, most of the multi6 wg participants are thinking
> along similar lines.
1. multi6 has not done with architectural analysis. It is still unknown
whether a multi-addressing or a id/loc split proposal(which includes
shim layer) or something else is going to be accepted.
2. If you look at the ML archive, all possible proposals are discussed
(which includes SCTP, SLAP or whatever..) So, your statement about
*most* WG participants thinking along similar lines is wrong.
3. you should speak for yourself, not for others.