RE: Next question...

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Tony Li wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Have we reached consensus that we need to deal with 
> multihoming policies?  

I thought that was one of the goals of the requirements document...

> And do we agree that doing so at the 
> per-host level doesn't scale?
> 

My interpretation of 'doesn't scale' in this case is that the host
policies are not managed by the network infrastructure team, therefore
per-host can't be part of the multi-homing solution using current
management tools and divisions of labor. If that interpretation is
correct, a simple non-technical approach like having the host and
network management teams actually talk to each other would remove the
scaling issue. Other approaches like better management tools would also
help. Removing per-host from the solution set may make it easier for the
network focused participants to reach consensus, but it blinds the host
& applications from the alternatives. Scaling in this case depends on
your perspective. From the app point of view, a network that does not
react appropriately is useless for anything more than a bit-pipe and
will be routed around or tunneled over (re: POTS, ATM, ...). Managing
fine-grained TE aspects of uncoordinated traffic sources with an IGP
sounds like a nice research topic.

Tony