The class B discussion contains a lot of discussion about what "multihoming," and especially "legitimate multihoming," mean. I don't pretend that I have the definitive answer on the meaning of legitimacy -- since I live in the same metropolitan area as Bill Clinton, I may not be sure of the meaning of anything -- but I do have a strawman to offer in coming up with a consensus definition of multihoming. Many of you attended my multihoming presentatation at the Albuquerque NANOG. That derived from an informational I-D, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berkowitz-multirqmt-01.txt. Officially, it expired in August, but it's still there and I am working on a new draft Slides for this were on the NANOG web page when last I looked; I'd be happy to send a PowerPoint version to anyone who doesn't want to scan through those GIF's. This document was written as a guide to analyzing customer multihoming requirements and then selecting the appropriate technology(ies) to implement the customer requirement. In the current version, I didn't include issues such as the number or speed of exchange point connections, but that certainly could be worked into the taxonomy. Anyway, suggestions are welcome on how I could extend the taxonomy in the draft to include some of the requirements for "legitimate" multihoming. Probably more likely than coming up with a definition of legitimacy, I'd be happy if we could come up with standard terms and criteria so we could talk consistently about multihoming. Howard