![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> There is also a potential scaling issue of using multiple addresses > as general purpose multihomging mechanism. This is because if this > is the case, most of the Internet hosts will end up with multiple > addresses. I don't see why this is inherently a problem. > It's possible that some multihomed sites will have to assign 4 or even > more ip addresses per host, depend on what kind of ISPs they multihoming > with. E.g. a site that happen to multihome to two tier-2 ISPs, each > multihomed with two different tier-1 ISPs, each host in this multihomed > site will have 4 IP addresses in order to get full benefit of redundancy. > One can image even more complicated case. I believe that it should be fairly straightforward to extend implementations to deal with this case; some of the proposals floating about actually significantly simplify the API's used by real applications. - Bill
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.