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

[Pim van Pelt]

| That is, before we get 32-bit AS numbers.
Interresting point, are there any concrete plans for this ?
 
| > 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.
| 
| This does not address:
| 1. The desire of the customer not to be held hostage by the ISP.
| 2. The performance requirement that some customers need to have direct
| transit from a large number of tier-1.
Both are not technical, but administrative. Especially the first one.

I do not say that these issues are non-existant, I'm merely pointing out
that these have nothing to do with the protocol, but with the way one
organises his/her network topology. (eg, multihoming itself can be done
easily with IPv6 also, but aggregation rules forbid it, as could they
forbid things in the IPv4 world)

groet,
Pim

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