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>