[84316] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Sun Sep 11 02:27:25 2005
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 06:26:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0509110626220.21650@uplift.swm.pp.se>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > Content providers and other large business, without who's funds the Internet
> > would fail, have a right not to be tied to a single provider. And while I
>
> The "shimming" model is a way to solve this by the endsystems knowing
> about multihoming, instead of the network. I personally think this is a
> better idea and scales much better. Let's have the network moving packets
cause each end node knows about the upstream network 'problems' so well?
giving them full routes too are we? ( I don't want to fight this arguement
here, I'm just making a rhetorical question, one I hope there will be a
presentation this nanog to also argue over :) )
