| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Mohsen Souissi wrote:
On 03 Jun, Jeroen Massar wrote: | David Conrad wrote: | [..]| >It's a bit sad that we didn't take the opportunity to define a new API | >that would return 'network handles' | | SCTP & HIP. Please look at these.==> Without any intention to revive an old controversy, and without calling it an "API" per se, RFC2874 (A6, made experimental by RFC 3363) attempted to address that issue, at least partially. Still today, I don't think that the benefits of A6 outbalance its costs.
A6's are very useful to migrate a host quickly in DNS, as it avoids 'editting' a lot, but then existing connections would still break. I don't see how A6 actually solves any problem, except where remote entities are controlling prefixes which they delegate to customers; updating A6 records does not update hosts though.
SCTP and HIP both handle that a host, during a session, renumbers and keep the session alive, completely transparent to the application, (unless it wants to know about it that is).
Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
