![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:28:46PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > At 16:02 13.12.99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:38:44PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > I don't think this is a problem for the routing system. > > > > > > indeed, you seem to be pushing a lot of routing decisions to the host. and > > > i am worried about where in the host's stack those decisions are > > supposed to > > > be made. > > > >Application layer. > Not in my 5-line client, it's not. > Source/destination address choice inside whois? inside finger? NO. That was a flip remark for entertainment purposes, and it begs the question of what you mean, precisely, by "application layer" in a non ISO world. That being said, it would be straightforward to bury something like this in libraries, so your 5 line application just loads with the multihoming library code, which would be, in practical terms, an integrated resolver/socket library that cached performance metrics for IP addresses associated with a particular domain name, and automatically switched to different IP addresses when performance became bad. You would want to have it periodically ping the other addresses, as well. I'm not proposing from a position of advocacy, you understand, but from a pure implementation point of view, it seems straightforward, and you could easily write 5 line clients that used it. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent at songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.