Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
Read the first three paragraphs of abstract of the draft:
And it doesn't actually explain why it's better.
multihoming is supported by transport (TCP) or application layer (UDP etc.) of end systems and does not introduce any problem in the network does not introduce any problem in the network is the reason.
The Architecture of End to End Multihoming
However, the draft is lacking in any description of an actual architecture.
That is a very convincing argument made by a person who haven't read title or abstract of the draft at all. Thank you very much.
Read RFC1518, which *does* describe an architecture, and ask yourself what's in that RFC that isn't in your draft.
*YOU* should read rfc1518. Then, you could have noticed that the rfc, despite its title, says: Status of this Memo This RFC specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community though, with modern terminology, the rfc is rather a BCP than on standard track. Masataka Ohta