On 2008-01-24 16:11, David Conrad wrote: > Brian, > > On Jan 23, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: >> It may be that rather than having one problem/solution match-up to >> consider, that there are two: >> >> dual-homed >> multi-homed (N>2) >> >> I'd argue that the requirements of each differ, and there can be >> significant scaling benefits from splitting them out, and handling >> each separately. > ... >> What do folks think? > > My gut feeling (FWIW) is that this would be a mistake. The assumptions > that you make differentiating the N=2 vs. N>2 cases appear to be > subjective and dependent on life as we know it now, not life as how we > might reasonably project it to be. What is to say that in the 'near' > (for some value of that variable) future, I won't want my cellphone > router connecting my PAN multi-homed to the (say) 6 cellular providers > it can find signal for?
Another point is that a normal scenario for a dual homed site wishing to change one of its ISPs would be to triple-home for a while (i.e. add ISP C while retaining ISPs A and B) and then drop A or B once things are stable with C. So changing from 2 to 3 and then back to 2 should be a simple operation, not two changes of mode. > > I'm not sure that coming up with an architecture that builds in these > sorts of assumptions won't end up biting us painfully in the end. Yes, there we go predicting the future again... Brian -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
