RE: Requirements for IP Multihoming Architectures

[Vijay Gill <vijay@umbc.edu>]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Elwyn Davies wrote:

> 2. Redundancy is illusory without getting into the 'shared fate'
> considerations which are currently exercising the IPO working group.   If
> your multiple connections end up running in a single duct that gets back
> hoed all your hard work goes for nothing.

There are multiple failure modes that can be protected against. If you are
connected via a single conduit run, then the back hoe fade protection of
dual homing is not going to happen. However, you are still protected
against failure at the IP level, including AS wide failures of a provider.

Now is it worth protecting against an AS/router/card failure when you
cannot protect against a backhoe?  from my time in the enterprise market,
I would lean towards - yes.

/vijay