Subject: Re: ISP failures and site multihoming [Re: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses]

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 05:44:14 +0859 ()

Michel;

> > Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> > This I thought was more or less standard. I was talking about
> > less than 100ms convergence.
> 
> Dude, this requires a keepalive or hello at 10ms intervals and a 25~30
> ms rtt. You might need to talk to a guy named Albert Einstein; he wrote
> interesting RFCs about the speed of light that, as far as I know, have
> not been debunked yet.

A simple end to end solution is to send multiple copies of a data to
multiple pathes. Mission critical application over SONET is already
doing so and it is said that, even if a path fails, not even a single
bit is lost.

As for IP multihoming, it is already implemented with a VoIP protocol
and is working fine. Senders send multiple copies of a RTP data. At
the receivers, RTP takes care of duplicate packet deletion. Having a
few voice streams is not a problem at all, of course.

							Masataka Ohta
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:46:59 +0100

> doing so and it is said that, even if a path fails, not even a single

No.

- kurtis -

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:39:52 +0859 ()

Kurtis;

> > doing so and it is said that, even if a path fails, not even a single

Which part are you arguing against?

							Masataka Ohta