North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Broken Internet?
- From: Roeland Meyer
- Date: Wed Mar 14 20:10:21 2001
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: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:25 AM
> To: Daniel Senie
> Cc: email@example.com
> 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
> > 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird