RE: Architectural approaches to multi6

["Dmitri Krioukov" <dima@krioukov.net>]

After browsing through this thread I'd like
to ask the following question: how many people
on this list would agree that a scalable
*engineering* solution to the multihoming
problem can be based neither on routing as we
know it today nor on any future improved and
superior routing architecture (if such an
architecture is based on the graph-theoretical
network representation)? (I assume that any
address binding mechanisms (similar to DNS)
are not considered as a part of routing.)

Also, a somewhat related question: is handling
failures beyond the links between the multihomer
and its transit provider (such as failures of links
between providers and the rest of the world) a
requirement? That it is not is an implicit assumption
of my first question. If it is (like it seemingly
follows from the requirement ID but not from Christian's
experiment), then a solution can only be routing-based,
and, hence (how many would agree?), it cannot be
scalable.

thanks,
--
dima.