> > the market wouldn't
> > feel the need to have to dual home.
> the internet model is to expect and route around failure.
Seems to me that there is some confusion over the meaning
of "multihoming". We seem to assume that it means BGP multihoming
wherein a network is connected to multiple ASes
--On October 24, 2005 10:01:21 AM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the market wouldn't
> feel the need to have to dual home.
the internet model is to expect and route around failure.
Seems to me that there is some confusion over the meaning
of "multihoming". We seem to assume that it me
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 02:24 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 3.Most multihoming today is done using BGP, but, many other
> solutions exist with various tradeoffs. In V6, there is
> currently only one known (BGP) and one proposed, but,
> unimplemented (Shim6) solution under active
[re-ordered front-posting]
24 okt 2005 kl. 11.35 skrev Jeroen Massar:
> > The multihoming that people here seem to want though is the Provider
> > Independent one, and that sort of automatically implies some routing
> > method: read BGP.
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:40 +0200, Peter Salanki wrote:
> O
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> the market wouldn't
> feel the need to have to dual home.
the internet model is to expect and route around failure.
Seems to me that there is some confusion over the meaning
of "multihoming". We seem to assume that it means BGP multihoming
wherein a network
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
[snip]
Other people use this term in very different ways. To some people
it means using having multiple IP addresses bound to a single
network interface. To others it means multiple websites on one
server.
That is virtual hosting in a NANOG context. Some undereducated
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:31:17 PDT, Crist Clark said:
>
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> Other people use this term in very different ways. To some people
> >> it means using having multiple IP addresses bound to a single
> >> network interface. To others it means multiple websites on one
>
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 10:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Other people use this term in very different ways. To some people
> it means using having multiple IP addresses bound to a single
> network interface. To others it means multiple websites on one
> server.
Do you not mean a single host
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 02:24 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> As I understand it, the term multihoming in a network operations
> context is defined as:
>
> (A multihomed network is)
> A network which is connected via multiple distinct
> paths so as to eliminate or reduce the likelihood that a single
>
I believe RFC1122 was written in the days when there was a one-to-one
correlation
between IP addresses and interfaces, and, you couldn't have one machine with
multiple addresses on the same network. Obviously, also, we are talking
about
network multihoming, not host multihoming in a NANOG context.
> ... shim6 doesn't fit into the definition does it? Its seems to be a
> question of multihomed networks Vs. multihomed hosts (although the
> effect may be the same at the end of the day).
>
>
Yes... The network is still multihomed, but, instead of using routing to
handle the source/dest addr. s
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes... The network is still multihomed, but, instead of using routing to
handle the source/dest addr. selection, it is managed at each end host
independent of the routers. The routers function sort of like the
network is single homed. It's very convolu
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A single tier-2 ISP who uses BGP multihoming with several
tier 1 ISPs can provide "multihoming" to it's customers
without BGP. For instance, if this tier-2 has two PoPs
in a city and peering links exist at both PoPs and they
sell a resilient access se
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 24 15:33:02 2005
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:31:17 -0700
> Subject: Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint id
> seperation)
>
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> Other people use this term in ve
On 25-Oct-2005, at 05:56, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*sigh* Multi-homing simply means [...]
As became clear when we wrote the draft that became RFC 3582,
apparently simple terms such as "transit provider" and "multi-homing"
mean surprisingly different things to different people.
The importa
Robert Bonomi wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 24 15:33:02 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:31:17 -0700
Subject: Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint id
seperation)
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
[snip]
Other people use this term in very different ways. To some
OK... As entertaining as the debate on the definition of "multihomed host"
is so far, I'd like to point out that on NANOG, we are generally NOT
concerned with that term. The term that we are most interested in
is "multihomed network".
I would submit that host multihoming is irrelevant to the cha
17 matches
Mail list logo
