Re: multi-homing vs multi-connecting

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:

> I mean, at some point there is an architectural division where multi-homing
> turns into routing

I don't think we should try to separate these. There are ways to
multihome without involving routing, but that should never be an excuse
for the routing people to ignore multihoming.

> - e.g. if you have two tiers of upstream providers, local
> ones L1-L3, and global ones G1-G3, all cross-connected, and you want to
> specify which pair traffic to a particular destination takes, that's really a
> routing problem, not a multi-homing problem. Whereas the single host with
> multiple interfaces is clearly multi-homing.

Multihoming makes routing more complex, as it adds more possible paths.
However, wanting to influence routing beyond the immediate next hop
isn't something that fits with our current paradigm. If you really want
this, you need source routing. Doing it partially would be easier:
simply take many addresses and then select the one that has the best
routing properties. For instance, you can use G1/L1, G2/L1, G1/L2 and
G2/L2 addresses and then figure out which of those four address blocks
works best. Obviously this doesn't scale, but it could be useful.

>     > From IPv4 perspective ... but in IPv6

> See previous message! Empty your mind of all this old junk! :-)

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  :-(

Iljitsch