RE: Broken Internet?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>]

Greg,

There are a number of problems with what you have proposed. For one thing,
the tinker-factor is too high for production purposes. I have more, but this
day is dedicated to BizDev and I can't spare the time right now..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: woods () weird com [mailto:woods () weird com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:25 AM
> To: Daniel Senie
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Broken Internet?
>
>
>
> [ On Tuesday, March 13, 2001 at 19:54:00 (-0500), Daniel 
> Senie wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Broken Internet?
> >
> > We can't. The point, though, is that the Internet needs to 
> have a GOOD
> > way to support multihoming. We presently DO NOT have a good 
> mechanism
> > for this. The IPv6 approach to this does not appear workable either.
>
> That's because this is a problem that has never existed, not ever.
>
> Proper *real* multi-homing has *ALWAYS* worked and it's technically an
> excellent way to achieve redundant connectivity for a "small" network.
> (other risks related to "all your eggs in one basket" type of physical
> infrastructure aside, and they can be put aside for many businesses
> because if the bricks&mortar part is destoryed the business can't
> survive anyway....)
>
> Given the various simple little tricks I mentioned you don't even need
> to put multiple interfaces in every server.
>
> -- 
>                                                       Greg A. Woods
>
> +1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods () acm org>      
> <robohack!woods>
> Planix, Inc. <woods () planix com>; Secrets of the Weird 
> <woods () weird com>