Re: ISP failures and site multihoming [Re: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses]

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

> In a perfect world I'm sure I'd agree with you. In real life however,
> the fact of the matter is that customers want multihoming, and it
> doesn't matter to the customers if that is a problematic approach that
> doesn't scale for the SPs. Doesn't even matter if it's technically the
> best solution for THEM, customers are not known for picking the best
> solutions, nor listening to their providers suggestions for better 
> ones,
> half the time. And, the simple fact of the market economy is that what
> the customers want, the providers are going to sell.
....which explains a lot of bad stuff being deployed, but that is 
another WG..:=)

> Making the IP backbones more resilient costs money. You get that money
> from your customers. You get the customers by selling them what they 
> are
> asking for. What they are asking for is multihoming. If they can't
> multihome with IPv6, well, then they won't use IPv6 until they can. If
> the customers don't want to use IPv6, the providers won't spend the
> money to support it.
Agreed!!!

> ...and this is yet another rehash of a discussion that has already been
> had so many times by so many people that I'm sure we can just copy &
> paste from here on out.
>
> The fact of the matter is, whether it's the best approach or not, we
> need a solution for customers to multihome. So let's bring our 
> attention
> back to that, shall we?
Agreed.

I have a suggestion....:)

- kurtis -