[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Draft of updated WG charter
On 9-jan-04, at 18:39, vijay gill wrote:
Significant amount of users that are multihomed have a setup that
accepts defaults from two providers, and anounces their blocks to
both upstreams. They receive no more information than the fact
that their connection is up. No routing tables, no prefixes, just
That's not very smart.
The end user system is often nat'd, and run through a stateful
firewall and all the information _they_ have is an ip address
of the gateway via dhcp.
Any end-host updating solution must work through this gobbledegook.
NAT in IPv6 is of course unacceptable. Firewalls also have the
potential to be harmful.
Having said this, I think we should recognize that the need to keep end
systems simple is a legitimate one. That's why I think any non-router
solutions should be implementable in middleboxes. This allows both the
smart host, dumb network world view by running the multihoming solution
on the hosts themselves, and the dumb host, smart network approach by
having "the network" (= middleboxes) handle multihoming.