Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls are neccessary

[Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>]

On 2002-11-19 13:22:29 -0600, Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Aldrin Isaac wrote:
> 
> > I've come to the conclusion that a host-based host-only
> > multihoming solution may be the only solution required for true
> > end-to-end multihoming since a *good solution* should meet all
> > requirements, bar simplicity, and should include mobility as well.
> 
> A host-based, host-only multihoming solution does not give the
> network the visibility into alternate paths to a destination, and
> therefore cannot apply policy to it.
> 
> The only point of control a network operator would have in that
> environment is some kind of policy mechanism on hosts.  I don't see
> it scaling to hundreds of thousands of nodes unless the central
> policy point is a function of the network.

Perhaps it is best to identify three categories of operator:

1. Large network operators
These people can get IP space and AS from their RIR, and advertise
into the DFZ, as in IPv4 today.

2. Small end-users
This means home users, and especially small businesses.  Right now,
they have no way to multihome at all.  I don't see any feasible way to
allow these users to multihome except for host-based multihoming.

3. Somewhere in-between
I hope that this is the area that you are always talking about when
you declare that multihoming requires policy control.

Which category is this group trying to help?  If it is #1, then we're
done.  If it is #2, then I think we have a good start.  If it is #3,
then there is basically MHAP.  I think for the long-term support of
category #3 we need real routing changes, perhaps BGP won't do it.

If we can agree on this breakdown perhaps we can move forward by
identify the needs of each.

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC