Jessica,
>
> >> There is also a potential scaling issue of using multiple addresses
> >> as general purpose multihomging mechanism. This is because if this
> >> is the case, most of the Internet hosts will end up with multiple
> >> addresses.
> >
> >I don't see why this is inherently a problem.
>
> This is paradigm shift in the Internet from majority of hosts
> with single IP address to the majority of the hosts with
> multiple IP addresses. Many existing support mechanisms such as
> routing (see Keith's message), DNS name look up, traffic engineering
> network managment,etc. may not be adequate. It may also break the
> things that we have not even thought of. And do not forget about
> operational complexity issues. Are we really ready for such a
> major shift?
I really think this is close to FUD. Routing "may not be adequate." In what way?
We will still be using BGP4(+) with highly aggregated addressing.
DNS lookup "may not be adequate." Which aspect? Are you worried about the AAAA
record or the A6 record, and what are the specific problems caused by multiple
prefixes? Traffic engineering "may not be adequate." What aspect of TE is
different with multiple prefixes per site, and why is it any harder than
with single prefixes? Network management "may not be adequate." Again, specifically
what is harder with multiple prefixes (apart from modifying network management
databases and GUIs to support longer and multiple prefixes)?
I'm not sure that multiple prefixes actually increase operational complexity;
from some viewpoints they simplify things- at least for operations staff,
the source and destination prefixes will be a big clue to how the traffic
should be routed. We've never had that clue before.
Brian
