Subject: RE: [Sigtran] question on SCTP future work

From: Coene Lode <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:03:20 +0100

Some thought has been given to it, but not (yet) written down.
- load balacing does not require a extension to SCTP as such.
- it depends what sort of loadbalacing your ar looking for
- it can be done via the application(every send to SCTP is always preceded
by a set-primary , with a policy of choosing the primary determined by the
application)be it a adaptation layer or a real application.
- the transmission characteristics of the path may(and will) be different
and may have a detrimental effect on the sequenced message delivery(gaps in
the SACK -> very long SACKs, retransmissions ..etc...) 
- I'll try to write some of it down. Don't know whether it is usefull or
not, but w'll see. 

yours sincerly,
Lode

Siemens atea
atealaan 34          2200 Herentals, Belgium
E-mail: [email-masked]
Tel: +32-14-252081
Fax: +32-14-253212

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parmar, Pankaj N [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 8:18 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: [Sigtran] question on SCTP future work
> 
> 
> 
> Currently SCTP supports multihoming which could be used as a 
> mechanism to
> achieve fault-tolerance, but not load-balancing. Has any 
> thought being given
> to extending SCTP to support load-balancing ? Any folks 
> working on it or
> thinking about it ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Pankaj
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> 

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran