+1 (or +several). From my point of view, we are trying to use
the same concepts of "multiple addresses per host" and "multiple
hosts per address" to handle a whole series of unrelated things,
perhaps with various sorts of virtualization and clustering at
one extreme and "one address per interface/link" at the other.
We haven't gotten any of them right for today's world and
attempts at most of them interfere with the others.
john
--On Thursday, January 01, 2009 8:00 AM -0800
ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I've been asked twice now in private email to clarify what I
mean, so this is going to turn into a massive rant about how
the current Internet architecture - as it is deployed, and as
it seems to be developing - has a completely broken idea of
how to address endpoints. The multiple meanings of the word
"multihoming" relate directly to the multiple points in the
rant.
Tony, I pretty much agree with everything you say here. There
really is a pretty serious disconnect between what we seem to
be able to build and what applications actually need.
...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf