Re: Multihoming by IP Layer Address Rewriting (MILAR)

[Eric Gauthier <eric@roxanne.org>]

>         Folks depend on www.cnn.com resolving to the right 
> load-balancer's IP address so that routing goes to the right place.  
> If DNS is really so broken that it is a crisis right now, then
> we should defer multi6 work to fix that first, IMHO.

I might be a bit confused here, but it seems that people are talking 
about two different things.

First, when a person (layer 8 application) or application wants to do 
something, they try to attach to that resource.   Somehow, those upper 
layer applications need to ask the lower layers to get a resource
(ie - please connect to IP x.x.x.x on port z).  This seems to be
the DNS side of things where you are determining what that layer
3 address should be.  Second, there is a pure layer 3 issue of how 
do various layer 3 devices build their routing tables.  

So, is the debate right now : do we want the multihoming functionality
to be handled by the upper layer -> layer 3 translation mechanism
or do we want it handled within the routing tables themselves (or
a conbination of the two).

If I've got this right, it seems like this is more of a debate on what 
direction we should take rather than about a specific technology.  Should 
we focus on the translations like, for example, the way Mail service was
implemented by using multiple MX records to handle failover of a service 
to a different IP.  Or, should we handle this solely within layer 3 
like, for example, how site multihoming is done using BGP?

Am I close on this?

Thanks!

Eric :)