> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Gill [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 20 March 2001 18:39
> To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:HG00:EXCH]
> Cc: multi6
> Subject: RE: Requirements for IP Multihoming Architectures
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> > 2. Redundancy is illusory without getting into the 'shared fate'
> > considerations which are currently exercising the IPO
> working group. If
> > your multiple connections end up running in a single duct
> that gets back
> > hoed all your hard work goes for nothing.
> There are multiple failure modes that can be protected
> against. If you are
> connected via a single conduit run, then the back hoe fade
> protection of
> dual homing is not going to happen. However, you are still protected
> against failure at the IP level, including AS wide failures
> of a provider.
> Now is it worth protecting against an AS/router/card failure when you
> cannot protect against a backhoe? from my time in the
> enterprise market,
> I would lean towards - yes.
.. and so would I - but can we do *any more* to check that there aren't any other common mode problems ?