Re: F1000 requirements?

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

> But I don't quite understand what NAT has to do with multihoming.
> Multihoming has to do with making addresses directly reachable
> via multiple paths. NAT has to do with hiding unreachable
> addresses behind reachable ones. Aren't these two things 
> orthogonal?

Speaking as a well-known NAT hater, I have to say that if a site
is hidden behind a NAT router that has connectivity to two
ISPs, site multihoming (without session survival) is clearly
straightforward. The router simply starts NATting to the other
ISP, which breaks existing sessions but moves new sessions to
the new ISP. No host inside the site knows that anything has changed.

    Brian