On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 10:32, Pekka Savola wrote: > This is a very problematic approach IMO. > > Need more resiliency? Network outages unacceptable? > > The right place to fix this is the network service provider, period. > Nothing else seems like a scalable approach.
In a perfect world I'm sure I'd agree with you. In real life however, the fact of the matter is that customers want multihoming, and it doesn't matter to the customers if that is a problematic approach that doesn't scale for the SPs. Doesn't even matter if it's technically the best solution for THEM, customers are not known for picking the best solutions, nor listening to their providers suggestions for better ones, half the time. And, the simple fact of the market economy is that what the customers want, the providers are going to sell. Making the IP backbones more resilient costs money. You get that money from your customers. You get the customers by selling them what they are asking for. What they are asking for is multihoming. If they can't multihome with IPv6, well, then they won't use IPv6 until they can. If the customers don't want to use IPv6, the providers won't spend the money to support it. ...and this is yet another rehash of a discussion that has already been had so many times by so many people that I'm sure we can just copy & paste from here on out. The fact of the matter is, whether it's the best approach or not, we need a solution for customers to multihome. So let's bring our attention back to that, shall we? /leg -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
