On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > |Entities unable to demonstrate a need to multihome 500 machines are > |refused direct assignments, resulting in tying to a single ISP and > |incomplete propagation of multihoming addresses within BGP. > > Seems not unreasonable to me. Since our current architecture can't support > that kind of multi-homing load, we're trying to avoid the load.
Tony, Now wait a minute; Brian just told us that we can't say with any scientific or engineering certainty what kind of multihoming load the current architecture can or can't support. Which is it? Can we? Or can't we? You follow the logical inconsistency, right? You can't in one breath say that we can't determine X and then in the next breath say that because of X we can confidently say Y. > Cool. Enjoy your Hummer. Mustang GT I'll have you know. Bought it for dirt right before the price of gas started its nose dive. My 20 mile commute includes a 15 mile stretch of nearly empty freeway. I'm lovin' it! Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
