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

[Paul Jakma]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Pim van Pelt wrote:

> | 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.

but pinned on a technical issue.

if prefixes in DFZ were free, 1,2 above would not be a concern at 
all.

> 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

they do though. changing is difficult because of the technicalities 
of addressing and routing.

with my phone service, i can change who provides my PRI without 
having to change my number. 

> 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)

if i am forbidden from having a DFZ routable prefix, the technical 
issue is left: "how can i have portability between ISPs"?

either there's a technical solution or there isnt.

the administrative question "may foo have a dedicated DFZ routable 
prefix?" is a seperate issue. (though with technical implications. :) 
)

> groet,
> Pim

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the
seed from which other committees will bloom.
		-- Parkinson