Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Anyway, multi6 WG utterly failed because most of the members (including
chairs) failed to understand that *TIMELY* multihoming needs notions
of timeout
No doubt that is why shim6, the direct result of multi6, includes probes, a
keepalive timeout and discussion of what to do if failure occurs even during
context creation.
That's the stupidity.
At the connectionless IP layer, never try to create a context, a
connection.
That's no different from poor NAT guessing validity of TCP connection
through timeout. The guess can not be complete, correct or *TIMELY*.
Moreover, as a connection at a higher layer already has proper
mechanisms for the timeout, providing an incomplete and incorrect
alternative somewhere else is totally useless.
According to the end to end argument:
The function in question can completely and correctly be
implemented only with the knowledge and help of the
application standing at the end points of the communication
system.
the knowledge and help is not available at the IP layer but is
already available at higher layers.
> I have never found it very helpful to accuse discussion partners of
> stupidity.
It isn't, unless shim6 members can recognize the collective
stupidity of the WG. But, that is not my problem.
Masataka Ohta