>We mean multihoming in a very broad sense -- A has multiple "things"
>to B. Those "things" may be separate fibers/wires, or MPLS tunnels, or ...
>
>
>As to possible solutions above the IP/Internet layer -- that is interesting,
>but outside of our scope.
Then at least say so explicitly, and perhaps point to other efforts
dealing with them. This is one of those things where non-goals are
needed.
I don't know if there are other IRTF groups dealing with these
issues, but, as a start, the IETF Transport Area deals with stuff
above the network layer and the Sub-IP area deals with things below.
The informal but real Insanity and Chaos Area, which typically meets
at the bar, deals with the whole mess.
Could you clarify your reference to MPLS tunnels above? I don't think
MPLS is in scope, but I do think communication between IP and sub-IP
is. Do you agree?
>
>Frank Kastenholz
>
>At 01:03 PM 3/5/02 -0500, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>>3.11 Multi-homing
>>Is multihoming really the right term here? The problem as seen by users is
>fault tolerance, and its solution may properly involve sub-IP, network
>layer, and higher layers. Should this definition be constrained to focus on
>multiple routed paths to all elements, without prejudicing mechanisms above
>and below the routing layer?
>>
>>
>>see both multi6 and draft-berkowitz-multreq-02.txt for possible
>terminology.
>
-- Howard C. Berkowitz hcb@gettcomm.com 703-998-5819 Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications Technical Director, CertificationZone.comUsual disclaimers -- on odd days I can't set policy and on even days I can. Or is it the other way around?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT