>I've been wondering about that. It would seem possible if the machine that
>receives the proces (let's call it B) is on the same net with ethernet. B
>would put it's card in promiscuous mode, and listen for packets that are
>meant for the port/ip adress of the application. The machine the process
>comes from (A) would stop responding to packets for that process. As long
>as the router accepts answers coming from the ethernet-adress of B
>(encapsulating perfectly good IP packets that are ok for the rest), it
>would seem that in fact B could
>take over A's network connection. A and B can compare notes ever so often
>to see whose card can best be put in promiscuous mode (maybe even both if
>there's also processes from B on A).
You could even use IPv6 and have a unique IP address for every process
which uses the network and is a candidate for migration (many things such
as NFS client daemons are not candidates for migration...).
-- ----------------------------------------------------------- In return for "mailbag contention" errors from buggy Exchange servers I'll set my mail server to refuse mail from your domain. The same response applies when a message to a postmaster account bounces. "Russell Coker - mailing lists account" <bofh@snoopy.virtual.net.au> -----------------------------------------------------------