Re: Comments on draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 10-nov-04, at 16:16, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> So, are you suggesting that if we want to maintain any multihoming 
>> bindings,
>> we should rely on application layer keep alives?
> 
> 
> Certainly not. What I'm saying is that if applications want to be sure a 
> session remains available, they should send keepalives. Then, if the 
> session goes away, the app gets to hear about it without much delay.

That's not true for TCP connections today, or anything below it - the 
session remains available until it is closed, even if unused. Doesn't 
this then change the semantics of 'application silence'?

I don't want unused sessions to consume bandwidth switching around, but 
they shouldn't go away per se.

Joe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBksVxE5f5cImnZrsRAsiBAKCh74Wbbzbi/eAotiPeIICQyx0bXgCgo2rH
NGjzW/o7SgFby8ZXfOUELjw=
=wLHi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----