Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!ATHENA.MIT.EDU!martillo
From: martillo@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Separation of Layers
Message-ID: <8710300305.AA20607@PARIS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 29-Oct-87 22:05:42 EST
Article-I.D.: PARIS.8710300305.AA20607
Posted: Thu Oct 29 22:05:42 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Nov-87 23:14:32 EST
References: <3483@diku.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 14


I seem to remember reading (perhaps in an article by Padlipsky) that
if a process receives a packet with expected source and destination
TCP ports, expected destination IP address but an unexpected IP source
address, such an incident should be considered an error.  I would
think that for a multihomed host selecting a new interface would be a
perfectly reasonable way to handle an interface error.  Also moving to
a new interface would be one way of handling load sharing.  The
recipient should be smart enough to start sending IP packets to the
new interface.  If IP and TCP are really separate layers, this
analysis makes sense to me.  Is this the way TCP/IP is implemented on
multihomed hosts?

Yaqim Martillo