RE: Consensus check

["J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>]

    > From: "marcelo bagnulo" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>

    >> There are many different problems that could be solved under the
    >> heading of multihoming, but for now, we should focus on site
    >> multihoming.

    > If you are asking about end-site multi-homing as oposed to provider
    > multi-homing, i would agree.

Sorry, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "end-site multihoming" and
"provider multi-homing"; I'm assuming that the former means what Tony means by
"site multi-homing", and guessing that the latter means a site that has
multiple links to a single provider. Can you please expand on these terms?

    > If you are asking about end-site multi-homing as oposed to host
    > multi-homing, then:
    > Would you include host solutions that solve the site-multihoming
    > problems by providing a solution for each host within the site? I
    > would say yes.

There has been some reaction (e.g. from Craig H.) of the form of "something
that works for a single host won't scale to large organizations with many
thousands of hosts".

Now, it may be possible to use the same fundamental mechanism (multiple
addresses), but layered underneath something else (e.g. 16+16, with the
external address added at the border) which gets rid of that problem.

	Noel