Subject: Re: [[email-masked]: unscientific multi-homing survey: results]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 09:33:35 -0500

Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> I sent some questions about multi-homing to the nanog list earlier
> this week, and a few people replied. This is a summary.
> 
> This is extremely non-rigorous, but might give a tiny bit of
> insight into something, maybe.
...
> >  + what is *bad* about the way that multi-homing works in IPv4?

Interesting that nobody mentioned BGP table bloat, and only
a couple mentioned convergence overhead - i.e. individual ISPs are 
not caused immediate pain by the global damage.

   Brian

---

From: [email-masked] (Craig Small)
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:42:03 +1000

> not caused immediate pain by the global damage.

My guess is because when most people think of multi-homing, they think
of a leaf node that has two connections. A large provider with multiple 
connections probably doesn't call itself multi-homed but rather uses that 
term for some of its customers.  Having worked for both sorts of places,
sure technically it is the same, but people just must put an additional
meaning to the term "multi-homed".

I thought this WG was for the first set of people, the bigger guys can
do the usual BGP tricks to get around problems. Having a workplace that
is about to multihome (IPv4 though) and could be considered a "leaf"
means I can see why people do multihome and what problems it causes.

  - Craig
-- 
Craig Small VK2XLZ  GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE  95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/        <[email-masked]>
MIEEE <[email-masked]>                 Debian developer <[email-masked]>