[35678] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Broken Internet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg A. Woods)
Wed Mar 14 16:17:56 2001
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: woods@weird.com (Greg A. Woods)
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu (North America Network Operators Group Mailing List)
In-Reply-To: <3AAEC128.850CAEE2@senie.com>
Reply-To: nanog@merit.edu (North America Network Operators Group Mailing List)
Message-Id: <20010314192442.7ABF68C@proven.weird.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:24:42 -0500 (EST)
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
[ On Tuesday, March 13, 2001 at 19:54:00 (-0500), Daniel Senie wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Broken Internet?
>
> We can't. The point, though, is that the Internet needs to have a GOOD
> way to support multihoming. We presently DO NOT have a good mechanism
> for this. The IPv6 approach to this does not appear workable either.
That's because this is a problem that has never existed, not ever.
Proper *real* multi-homing has *ALWAYS* worked and it's technically an
excellent way to achieve redundant connectivity for a "small" network.
(other risks related to "all your eggs in one basket" type of physical
infrastructure aside, and they can be put aside for many businesses
because if the bricks&mortar part is destoryed the business can't
survive anyway....)
Given the various simple little tricks I mentioned you don't even need
to put multiple interfaces in every server.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
