[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New draft: Now What?
On Fri, 2 May 2003, S Woodside wrote:
> Hi, I have a comment about this draft from the perspective of Community
> wireless networks.
> > 3.1.1. Minimal
> > Very minimal end-sites, such as typical home networks or very small
> > enterprises, are quite small and typically do not include mission-
> > critical activities.
> Yes, this is true.
> > Naturally, anyone would be willing to achieve multihoming benefits,
> > but usually the associated costs, e.g. caused by obtaining physical
> > connectivity to two ISPs, do not justify it.
> This is a argument that begs the question "is it expensive". You are
> assuming that the answer is yes, but it's not with a CWN, one of the
> main points of a CWN is to share bandwidth from people connected to
> different ISPs. That's different people, each individually connected to
> one ISP, but sharing the traffic between them, in a mesh, or a managed
> network, whatever, they are still sharing it.
Well, actually the "expensive" factor not real for e.g. many SOHO users.
Getting two DSL lines from different providers costs you double the 20-40$
(or whatever). Not a big deal. A problem is that they typically go via
the same telco phone lines, so it doesn't really add any L1-L2 redundancy.
Using Cable+DSL might be more failure-proof though.
However, I'd argue such CWN's could classify themselves as "Small" sites.
The terminology and drawing the line is a bit shaky, unfortunately.
But the point of the draft basically is that anything of the size "small"
(or maybe even "large") or smaller, we *have* to go with multiple PA
addresses or stick with multi-connecting, IMHO.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings