Tony Finch wrote:
>
> In fact the use of the term "multihoming" to describe multiple IP
> addresses on the same link is a serious problem with practical
> consequences.
I see no benefit of setting up "multi-homing" without separate links.
Routing based on source address is a dangerous practic
> I've been asked twice now in private email to clarify what I mean, so this
> is going to turn into a massive rant about how the current Internet
> architecture - as it is deployed, and as it seems to be developing - has a
> completely broken idea of how to address endpoints. The multiple meanings
This link is pointing to something important which we should consider in
every IETF and RFC document.
http://weblogs.com.pk/jahil/archive/2008/12/30/multi-vendor-ospf-implementat
ion-on-juniper-cisco-part-1.aspx
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@
+1 (or +several). From my point of view, we are trying to use
the same concepts of "multiple addresses per host" and "multiple
hosts per address" to handle a whole series of unrelated things,
perhaps with various sorts of virtualization and clustering at
one extreme and "one address per interf
[ (Non-cross)posted to IETF discussions, NANOG, PPML, RIPE IPv6 wg,
Dutch IPv6 TF. Web version for the monospace font impaired and with
some links:
http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace2008.php ]
2008 IPv4 Address Use Report
As of January first, 2009, the number of unused IPv4 addresses is
92
Masood Ahmad Shah wrote:
This link is pointing to something important which we should consider in
every IETF and RFC document.
http://weblogs.com.pk/jahil/archive/2008/12/30/multi-vendor-ospf-implementation-on-juniper-cisco-part-1.aspx
Actually it's just pointing to your blog.
__
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, John Leslie wrote:
>
>I'm not at all clear what "support" of "multihoming" Tony is asking
> for...
I'm not clear either, because I don't know what mechanisms could make it
work, especially not mechanisms that are deployable.
But what we need is an addressing architecture t
I concur. This points to your blog. Take me off future distros that
point to unoffical IETF blogs.
On 1/1/09, Willie Gillespie wrote:
> Masood Ahmad Shah wrote:
>> This link is pointing to something important which we should consider in
>> every IETF and RFC document.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://weblo
Total of 40 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 2 00:53:01 EST 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
12.50% |5 | 17.87% |58361 | jeanj...@comcast.net
10.00% |4 | 9.05% |29539 | d...@dotat.at
