Re: Multihoming - Resilience or Independence
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:18:39 +0200
In message <200110102043.FAA26347@localhost>, Masataka Ohta wr
ites:
>> So far I have not seen anybody really say "this is how it should be done".
>
> draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00.txt
>
>is dated April 2000.
And, according to IETF rules, because of its age: obsolete ?
>And, now, there even is a multi6 WG of IETF.
Cool, lets see what they can disagree on in a couple of years...
>> My current advice to my customers are therefore: Multiple IP# per
>> server, use DNS for load-balancing.
>
>The problem is that load-balancing is not a reason for multi-homing.
(For the moment, you can save yourself a lot of time by assuming
that I actually know what I'm talking about :-)
Load-balancing means different things to different people...
Some people include in "load-balancing" the ability to disable
non-responsive servers, upstream providers and so on.
Just as we learned that checksums and handshakes only matter
if they are end-to-end, the same way people will eventually
realize that load-balancing, redundancy and resillience only
matter if implemented end-to-end.
But that doesn't change the fact that people will still want a
solution now, that neither "go to IPv6" nor "wait for IPv6" will
satisfy them and that ISP's who are able to meet this demand will
make more money than ISP's who can't...
Human nature being what it is, we can also pressume that rules
will be bent as far as possible and that more money speaks louder...
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@localhost | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
