Re: A new spin on multihoming: multihoming classes.

[Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>]

On 2001-09-05 14:32:37 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Michel" == Michel Py <py_michel@yahoo.com> writes:
>     Michel> Let's divide multihoming into two classes:
>     Michel> - Entreprise class.
>     Michel> - user class.
> 
>   Let's be more precise here:
> 	- Ruling lords			(aka "servers")
> 	- serfs	 (no, not "surfs")	(aka "clients")
> 
>   This is not peer to peer/end-to-end.
> 
> It totally fails to provide for the very large number of organizations
> that in the IPv4 world do not do BGP with anyone because the barrier
> to entry is too high for IPv4. They would like not to be held hostage
> by the ISPs.

While I'm not sure I agree with the politically-charged nature of this
post, I agree that there shouldn't be any difference between "big
honkin' server" end-to-end connectivity and "mom's recipe box server".
End-to-end is end-to-end, and I think that the multiple-IP solution is
the right tactic.

However, there is a need for network multihoming, which will probably
need to be solved as well.  But given that most of the growth of the
routing table seems to be end users desiring reliability and speed, I
think the network multihoming problem can wait.

-- 
Shane
Carpe Diem