TLA request 'for multihoming' (was: pTLA request SSVL)

[Pim van Pelt]

| 
| And thus, we once again see evidence that the notion of hierarchial routing
| is never going to fly without an enforced mandate... or everyone with an AS
| will want a TLA which can be routed arbitrarily.

If everyone with an AS will have a TLA then I would be very happy. That
would mean 64K prefixes in the DFZ ;-)

| Yes, I know there's a multihoming draft. As it's name implies, it's.. well,
| a draft. And none of the various multi-address-capable protocols are even
| remotely close to wide adoption yet.
Afaik, there has never been an answer to multihoming except perhaps
'create a higher accepted prefixlen', but that only moves the problem
downwards. 

>From a technical point of view, there is no need for multihoming. An ISP
(look at the thread I started previously) can maintain redundant uplinks
to the Internet, multiple peering routers, multiple transit carriers,
etcetc, without the need for the customer to have its prefix announced
by more than one ISP.

groet,
Pim
-- 
---------- - -    - - -+- - -    - - ----------
Pim van Pelt                 Email: pim@ipng.nl
http://www.ipng.nl/             IPv6 Deployment
-----------------------------------------------