Re: New draft: Now What?

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, S Woodside wrote:
> Hi, I have a comment about this draft from the perspective of Community 
> wireless networks.
> 
> > 3.1.1. Minimal
> >
> >    Very minimal end-sites, such as typical home networks or very small
> >    enterprises, are quite small and typically do not include mission-
> >    critical activities.
> 
> Yes, this is true.
> 
> >    Naturally, anyone would be willing to achieve multihoming benefits,
> >    but usually the associated costs, e.g. caused by obtaining physical
> >    connectivity to two ISPs, do not justify it.
> 
> This is a argument that begs the question "is it expensive". You are 
> assuming that the answer is yes, but it's not with a CWN, one of the 
> main points of a CWN is to share bandwidth from people connected to 
> different ISPs. That's different people, each individually connected to 
> one ISP, but sharing the traffic between them, in a mesh, or a managed 
> network, whatever, they are still sharing it.

Well, actually the "expensive" factor not real for e.g. many SOHO users.  
Getting two DSL lines from different providers costs you double the 20-40$ 
(or whatever).  Not a big deal.  A problem is that they typically go via 
the same telco phone lines, so it doesn't really add any L1-L2 redundancy.  
Using Cable+DSL might be more failure-proof though.

However, I'd argue such CWN's could classify themselves as "Small" sites.

The terminology and drawing the line is a bit shaky, unfortunately.

But the point of the draft basically is that anything of the size "small" 
(or maybe even "large") or smaller, we *have* to go with multiple PA 
addresses or stick with multi-connecting, IMHO.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings