Re: (multi6) requirements draft comments

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "J" == J Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> writes:
    mcr> None of these solutions are even exclusive. I can see all three
    mcr> systems occuring at the same time.

    J> Yes, but... if you have a solution which works for 10^7 multi-homed
    J> houses, and works well, why bother to have a separate one for
    J> companies?

  If we can find a way to multihome 10^7 sites using a single route-name,
then I'm all for it. 
  (In my mind, this means that applications need not be aware they are
multihomed, and some transport protocols would not care either) 

  If the 10^7 can only be solved using your category (ii) solutions, then
the traditional multihoming solutions will remain.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBPCE0TIqHRg3pndX9AQHF6AP/bUwIqUdSKZK1Vip8OsKVJs1SYUlaFWA0
8O/z3S3cujrXlCPZ1FM2yZYLertdvt/ScMkuicdD7i5UsHV3zlSENiEq5T/aA+uC
CuJ6SZ9aYy9mXIsF+zJDxAZDlFBIS3H+4TDRn/7ZsMWkQB92UwcdQH2gj9IPusU+
YvrTizlWDMs=
=mDYJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----