Re: two perspectives on "site" multihoming

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


	Dave,


> One is at the site-level, of course. Hence the focus is on 
> network-level
> mechanisms. An example would be a network-agile method of addressing
> while holding the host portion constant, and then filling in the 
> correct
> network portion at the exit router.  Presumably this would leave the
> host untouched.
>
> The other approach is at the host-level, where the exit router is
> essentially unaware of the mechanism -- return filtering issues
> notwithstanding. The model has the host do all the work and can, in
> fact, leave the exit router unchanged. So, the host is address-agile.
>
> It is worth noting that this approach has the option of being
> implemented at the site level, largely transparent to the host, for 
> easy
> adoption by sites. Or it can be adopted at the host level, for easy
> adoption by those hosts, without having to recruit site administration
> to the effort.

I think your second scenario (without a modified exit router) is a 
mobile node. More or less. And I wouldn't describe that as site 
multihoming. There is a scaling component from a administrative point 
of view involved. IMHO the first scenario and a scenario where there is 
interaction between the hosts and the site-exit routers, are site 
multihoming.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQE15CaarNKXTPFCVEQIygQCfex+D0yN97z2JrsW7PMc3TRHXuTwAni73
olVsPn6cd9E3lplELko0+cya
=LEtE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----