[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls are neccessary
From: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 15:42:59 -0500
In-reply-to: <20021123185737.H3091-100000@sequoia.muada.com>
Mail-followup-to: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>, multi6@ops.ietf.org
References: <EFCE1455-FF08-11D6-940E-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <20021123185737.H3091-100000@sequoia.muada.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 07:01:44PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum allegedly wrote:
> Before CIDR there was no multihoming issue.  :-)

This statement doesn't make sense to me.  There was multihoming before
CIDR.  We had hierarchy arguments.  We had already overwhelmed some
routers with RIB size (iirc the first was when we hit 108 routes) and
route lookup time.  All the problems were there in potential.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls areneccessary
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

References:
- Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls are neccessary
  - From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
- Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls areneccessary
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls are neccessary
Next by Date: Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls areneccessary
Previous by thread: Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls areneccessary
Next by thread: Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls areneccessary
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread