Excerpts from David Conrad on Wed, Jan 23, 2008 07:11:00PM -0800: > 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? > > 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.
Historically that's usually what's happened when we explored this kind of distinction, in any area. In the end it just wasn't worth it and we reverted to a single general class. There was a time when we considered special ASNs for multihomed sites. What happened to that idea? Scott -- 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
