Re: Transport level multihoming

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Ben;

> If there is a requirement that multihoming solutions be restricted to
> the network layer, I'd appreciate a pointer to the spot in the text so
> I can immediately delete it.  Any solution that can be shown to meet
> the requirements should be considered.

Your draft is mostly OK. But, as I already pointed out, there
are several points improperly mention or assume routing based
solutions.

> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:03:26AM +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Brian;
> > 
> > > Regardless of whether transport level multihoming can be
> > > achieved (which is a long running debate, and I agree
> > > that SCTP makes it a bit more plausible), the operational
> > > requirement for IP level multihoming isn't going to go away
> > > at least for the next 10 or 15 years, so we have to solve it.
> > 
> > The operational multihoming requirement of IP level operators is
> > for IP level multihoming, of course.
> > 
> > However, the source of the requirement is subscribers.
> > 
> > Without subscriber requirement, there is NO operational
> > requirement.
> > 
> > 						Masataka Ohta
>