>Subject: Re: W.G. Last Call on "IPv6 Multihoming with >Route Aggregation"
See Paragraph X.
>This also buys me the additional safety of being >shielded from complete
>failure of one of the upstream ISPs. With network >connectivity now
>becoming fundamental to doing business, I submit that >there isn't a single
>sensible company who would rely upon this draft under >discussion for a
>critical need. Instead most of them would immediately >try and go for
>Paragraph X. Speaking as an operator, when clients are >throwing $n
>million contracts at you, there is a powerful incentive >to accomodate
>them.
>
>/vijay
That doesn't mean it the concept should not be properly documented. You know
some marketing droid will find a way to sell the concept of dual homing to
the same provider, no matter how technically defensible it is. (I actually
know a few ISPs who _brag_ that they were able to get such an arraignment).
Takes all Kinds..
PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
