Multihoming - Resilience or Independence

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:04:23PM +0200, Nipper, Arnold wrote:
> there are a lot of reasons why customers want to be multi-homed. And what
> I'm seeing here is, that the ISP community is not able to offer such a
> service. But instead of blaming the "stupid" customers, ISP should go home
> and make their homework.

So what should "their homework be", then?  BGP has its limitations, and
there are no other WAN routing protocols yet that *would* work with 
ever-increasing table size and topology complexity.

You're taking the very easy way "stop complaining, it's all your own fault".

Things like "ISP confederations, many ISPs using the same address space
and multi-homing their customers among themselves" is something that might
work, but are VERY problematic when this breaks apart.  See what happened
to Contrib.NET - lots of small routes from 194.77.* as a result of this.

... and if you make it "one organization", then you have exactly what my
proposal for resiliency and stability is: multihome to different POPs of
the same ISP.  Which will be sufficient for most enterprise customers
(that do not add address management and end customer issues into this),
and it will be a lot less expensive on them and on the global network
than doing "externally visible multihoming".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299