Re: Transport level multihoming

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

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Daniel Senie wrote:

> At 11:09 AM 8/8/01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Daniel,
> >
> >If I could avoid the conclusion that we are forced into transport level
> >gymnastics, I would be delighted. But remember that the scaling arguments
> >are several orders of magnitude worse than in the 802.5 case (potentially
> >many millions of entries in a flat routing table, as opposed to a few thousand
> >for LAN bridging tables.)
> 
> As I said, I remain open to transport level involvement if there's no other 
> way. The arguments REALLY do remind me of the 802.5 ones. While I agree we 
> are orders of magnitude larger in scope here, we also have significantly 
> improved technology to work with. The reliance on "sky is falling" 
> arguments to justify standards development which at best will take years is 
> what I'm questioning. MPLS was started because of a belief we could never 
> build routers that could handle the massive loads, yet routers CAN handle 
> the loads. Yes, MPLS has other uses now.
> 
> A good test of the justification for undertaking a standardization effort 
> would be to look back at the point at which a technology is ready for 
> deployment, and see if the initial reasons are still valid.

That should not invalidate any research done on transport level solution in the
mean time.  There may be other important spin offs.

> 
> We will not know for some years whether the decisions we make now are the 
> correct ones. I do hope we can find ways to justify ourselves that stand 
> the test of time.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Daniel Senie                                        dts@senie.com
> Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com
> 
> 
> 

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