Re: A new spin on multihoming: multihoming classes.

[Michel Py <py_michel@yahoo.com>]

Michael Richardson wrote:
>   Let's be more precise here:
> 	- Ruling lords			(aka "servers")
> 	- serfs	 (no, not "surfs")	(aka "clients")

First, serfs are not limited to be clients, second
I don't have a problem with being a serf at home. I
run
a personal web site out of a mighty Pentium 133 server
and a residential Pacific Bell aDSL (128kbps
upstream).
If I can multihome it for $30 a month more, I will
give
it a thought.

And yes, I am also a ruling lord at the office, we
have
multiple OC48s, a robot to change backup tapes, a
multi-
terabyte SAN array, and a 24/7 staff and NOC.

> 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.

I don't agree with that, at least not in the US. If
you
can't afford a BGP feed is because you don't really
need it. Yes, it would be nice to have my home network
connected with two DS3s to two ISPs, I could actually
configure it myself, I just don't make enough money to
justify it. A company that connects to the Net with a
T1
does not need BGP

> We are not yet at 1 computer per household member,

I actually have 7 IP connected computers in my two-
person household not to mention those that are too old
to be connected with IP.

> Add in PDAs and  gameboys via household bluetooth
> or 802.11, and I do not see how the "client/server"
> scenario you propose makes any sense.

I do not see where the client/server part is in what I
propose, could you devellop that part?

Michel.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com