[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: radical solutions
> | But, why do you insist that we have to change routing for
> | multihoming?
> We need to change routing anyway to support more complex expressions
> of policy that allow network operators to constrain certain traffic to
> certain subsets of their local topology.
You are a simple guy and do not handle complex expressions of policy.
That's the way to keep the Internet operational.
> This is driven in part by the
> sort of greedy commercial interests that employ people like me. :-) :-) :-)
You don't have to do anything technically and should simply tell the
commercial people that the issue is so complex that they should pay
more salary for you forever.
> | End-to-end multihoming does not affect routing.
> Unfortunately, I did not fully understand your draft which explains it.
> I am a simple guy, and might benefit from a simpler summary.
Let routing concentrate to compute singly homed routes.
Give applications all the addresses and let applications try all of
them based on the application specific time-out periods.
Local routing table and ICMP may or may not help to skip hopeless
It is already done for DNS and SMTP servers.