Re: Pseudo "last call" for draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260-02.txt

["Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@cisco.com>]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Personally, I find the approach workable in theory but rather awkward in
> practise; I don't see one's upstream operator(s) jumping with joy if
> they'd have to set up and operate a rather extensive "link backup
> service", co-operating with their competitors.  In an academic,
> no-money-exchanged world this probably works better.

From an enterprise end-user point of view, this approach adds more
confusion to a solution that already has major concerns.  The number 1
concern that we have to deal with in this multihoming scheme is the path
selection by the originating TCP stack through its selection of source and
destination addresses.

The tunnel adds a kludge under the guise of resiliency.  It will be hell
to troubleshoot in case of a failure of the primary link, and has the
potential to introduce a suboptimal path that would be better addressed
through utilizing another provider.

/cah

---
Craig A. Huegen  CCIE #2100                       C i s c o  S y s t e m s
Sr Network Architect, GCTS                              ||        ||
Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive              ||        ||
San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                    ||||      ||||
email: chuegen@cisco.com                           ..:||||||:..:||||||:..