North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]

  • From: David Barak
  • Date: Tue Sep 13 14:25:41 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=CKp0uQBIEYTMqeyFtmj/aHv/QXeASZ2bV6sfGMWBGPipQww0Y5JJIYtf4WSQXI/Kp2/ABc2rNMdA628l3i13bcgER+iogQlgquhMWN0pve9mAaPqYNmww2ew77gW2rI9zunMPSXghRsZTTinUm1ISPoUoq9fdHS4pAs38MF+s34= ;

--- Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote:

> The "shimming" model is a way to solve this by the
> endsystems knowing 
> about multihoming, instead of the network. I
> personally think this is a 
> better idea and scales much better. Let's have the
> network moving packets 
> as its primary goal, not solving "how do I reach
> this prefix" equations.

Waitaminute - isn't the whole *purpose* of layer 3
that the network makes these routing decisions?  

If there are N routers in an ISP, I would expect the
ISP to connect to X endsystems, where 10N < X < 1000N.
How does knowing about X endsystems scale better than
knowing about N intermediate systems?

Am I missing something here?

David Barak
http://www.listentothefranchise.com


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com