Re: Transport level multihoming

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Peter Tattam wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:
> 
> > > Doesn't similar constraints apply to any transport level solution ?
> > > I am not sure how a transport solution works when one of the
> > > upstream ISP's link fails. Isn't this one of the requirements ?
> > 
> > I don't think that an end-host level solution without address
> > translation can work effectively 
> > in a decentralized multi-tier multihoming scenario because the end-hosts'
> > addresses have to be added/deleted/modified whenever a provider
> > adds/deletes/changes its providers. Address translation has to be used,
> > but this will be rendered less effective in the 
> > transport level multihoming case because end-hosts will now have to be 
> > aware of the final routable addresses so that they can advertise them in
> > the payload, assuming we don't want to change every app at the other
> > end-point to make it aware of multiple addresses.
> > 
> 
> I thought that site renumbering was supposed to deal with this?  Bob Hinden had
> a lot to say on the issue.

Disregard this comment in this context. I think it relates to another message I
was reading.

Apologies.

........
> 
> Peter 
> 
> --
> Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
> Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
> Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210
> 
> 
> 

--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210