![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Actually, I think this is the case more often than many people may realize.
Right now, for example, one of my sites is running in this mode for exactly
this reason. Yes, there are issues, but not ones that aren't relatively
easily mitigated.
ssh
--
Steve Hultquist, CTO and VP of Technology
Leopard
Boulder, Colorado, http://www.leopard.com/
Jessica Yu
<jyy at ans.net> To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at orchard.arlington.ma.us>
cc: Jessica Yu <jyy at ans.net>, Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>,
12/10/1999 Christian Huitema <huitema at research.telcordia.com>, Sean Doran
01:01 PM <smd at EBONE.NET>, ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations
information?
>> 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.
This is paradigm shift in the Internet from majority of hosts
with single IP address to the majority of the hosts with
multiple IP addresses. Many existing support mechanisms such as
routing (see Keith's message), DNS name look up, traffic engineering
network managment,etc. may not be adequate. It may also break the
things that we have not even thought of. And do not forget about
operational complexity issues. Are we really ready for such a
major shift?
So I would not say so quickly that it's not a problem.
--Jessica
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.