[85650] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Fri Oct 14 23:56:36 2005
In-Reply-To: <20051014161050.GB30311@srv01.cluenet.de>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:42:06 -0400
To: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Oct 14, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> designing a solution
> which misses the stated requirements of many folks actually operating
> networks
So far it's missing some of the stated requirements (reasons for
multihoming) listed in the charter... well I was going to cut-n-paste
like I did to my email to shim6 dated Oct 4 2005, but it seems to
have been removed in an update... so I'll cut-n-paste from that email:
For the purposes of redundancy, load sharing, operational policy or
cost, a site may be multi-homed, with the site's network having
connections to multiple IP service providers.
So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome. Of those 4, shim6
ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so far
as I can see glosses over load sharing.
I'd actually redefine load sharing to load (im)balancing, but that
may just be pedantics.
I don't recall seeing any followup to my question, and it's not
showing up in the list archive so maybe there's something wrong with
my list subscription (although I have had responses to other
postings... which are also not in the archive)
