On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > SHIM6 seems to already offer multihoming/loadsharing - and does so at > the IP level, so I really wonder why one would want to use MPTCP when > that's one up and seems to limit itself to TCP. > I somewhat disagree even if I get your point and if that xkcd looks so true. SHIM6 isnt (and probably won't be) ready to be deployed as it requires IPv6 and, above all, it has no support for middleboxes traversal. MPTCP is designed from the start with the backward-compatibility in mind. As it is a TCP option, it shouldn't be interfered with. In the opposite case, it has some fallback mechanisms that allows it to be completely transparent to boxes that don't want to support it. Also, AFAIK, SHIM6 is only for multihoming/redundancy in case of a link fail not exactly for loadsharing. MPTCP, on the other side, is supposed to enhance performances when multiple links are available and I assume that's why some big companies are interested in it, especially for datacenters. Anyway, thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, that's not the subject. So, is there anyone who could at least confirm that there is no way to use the RELATED state bit for my concern? Thank you. -- Nicolas Maître -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
