[ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document

[Howard, W. Lee]

Would it be fair, in your opinion, to distinguish three classes of
network that might require multihoming?

End-user networks may require some means of switching from two
types of residential access, but may be generally assumed to have
no more than two simultaneous links, a single prefix, and no need
for traffic engineering.

Enterprise networks need multihoming primarily for reliability,
but may also need some level of best-path selection, and may need
some degree of load distribution.  In IPv6, they will generally
have no more than two prefixes.

ISP networks need lots of peers and lots of knobs for traffic
engineering, load distribution, best-path selection, and ways to
manage routing table bloat.  

It seems perfectly reasonable to have a host-based solution for end 
users, a feature-rich BGP for ISPs, and for enterprise networks to
choose the solution that fits best.

Your mileage may vary.

Lee


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Michel Py
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:37 PM
> To: Azinger, Marla; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document
> 
> Hi Marla,
> 
> While this document does a decent job at describing solutions, it does
> not address the #1 reason why no solution is deployed a 
> decade after we
> started working on finding one: palatability of the solution 
> to the end
> users. In other words: what are the realistic chances of a given
> solution to be successfully deployed in the real world.
> 
> The main issue with IPv6 multihoming is not the pros and cons of
> solutions, but their deployability. Failure to understand this is why,
> 10 years after, we still are discussing the pros and cons of 
> solutions.
> 
> Michel.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>