![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> Let's put it this way: the registries are instructed that only top level > providers should get one of these addresses. Everyone who does not qualify > supposedly get a delegation from a TLA, or several delegations in the case > of multi-homed networks. of course, this requires that sending hosts or applications make intelligent decisions about which destination address to use (and which source address to use with a particular destination address), usually in the absence of any information which might inform the decision. it's not at all clear that this can work well enough to be a general purpose multihoming mechanism, at least not without adding a fair amount of extra infrastructure and complexity - i.e. a mechanism which hosts or applications can use to query the network to determine relative proximity of several different addresses. if it does turn out to work it will probably be because all of the available prefixes for both the source and destination host are so reliable and have so much available bandwidth that most of the time that it doesn't matter which of the available addresses you use. (it's tempting to say that multihoming will work quite well for those cases where you don't need multihoming... but that is a bit of an exaggeration) to be fair, "traditional" multihoming doesn't scale well enough to use that approach either. maybe we just need for Internet service to be as reliable as telephone service. Keith
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.