|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Broken Internet?
Greg, There are a number of problems with what you have proposed. For one thing, the tinker-factor is too high for production purposes. I have more, but this day is dedicated to BizDev and I can't spare the time right now.. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:25 AM > To: Daniel Senie > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > > > [ On Tuesday, March 13, 2001 at 19:54:00 (-0500), Daniel > Senie wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Broken Internet? > > > > We can't. The point, though, is that the Internet needs to > have a GOOD > > way to support multihoming. We presently DO NOT have a good > mechanism > > for this. The IPv6 approach to this does not appear workable either. > > That's because this is a problem that has never existed, not ever. > > Proper *real* multi-homing has *ALWAYS* worked and it's technically an > excellent way to achieve redundant connectivity for a "small" network. > (other risks related to "all your eggs in one basket" type of physical > infrastructure aside, and they can be put aside for many businesses > because if the bricks&mortar part is destoryed the business can't > survive anyway....) > > Given the various simple little tricks I mentioned you don't even need > to put multiple interfaces in every server. > > -- > Greg A. Woods > > +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <[email protected]> > <robohack!woods> > Planix, Inc. <[email protected]>; Secrets of the Weird > <[email protected]> >
|