RE: multi-homing vs multi-connecting

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> Sure, there can be other non-routing implications, e.g. if you decide
that
> the
> you're going to use is multiple "addresses", then you have to deal
with
> the
> "how do I tell that address A and address B refer to the same host,
the
> I'm
> talking to" (provided of course that that problem is one you care
about).
> 
> But basically multi-homing turns into a path-selection (i.e. routing)
> problem.

Yup. The multiple addresses vs. single address decision is really an
implementation choice; the multiple addresses (or locators) solution is
basically a decision to move the complexity out of the routing system
and into the hosts. It does not remove the need to uniquely identify the
"host", if only as the closure of the equivalence relation "address A
and address B lead to the same point"; it simply removes the need to
have the routing system be aware of the identity relation. Arguably, it
also removes the opportunity for the routing system to do smart things,
but that is precisely the trade-off.

Obviously, there may be multiple paths leading to each of the multiple
addresses, so the decision is not strictly binary.

-- Christian Huitema