| it's not at all clear to me why households need traditional multihoming,
| nor how to make it feasible for households to have it. so I would regard
| this as overdesign of the home 'internet interface box'
In the past, when and if large arrogant backbone providers like
me used to say that a push against multihoming was a good way
to avoid stressing the current routing system by avoiding
address deaggregation and globally-visible reachable changes
that could result, we would get flayed alive.
The lesson: always assume that, no matter how technically odd
one thinks it may be, everyone will want to multihome if it is
feasible to do so.
Multihomed entities like to submit bandwidth increase orders
to one or the other provider over time, depending on a
number of factors. Likewise, singlehomed entities appear
to want to multihome, and at some point rather than upgrade
the single connection to the Internet, will order a second
connection from a different provider, and attempt to do
In many areas nearly every household PRESENTLY has several
possible fixed, wireless and switched facilities over which
Internet access can be offered.
I would say that rather than being overdesigned, that it is slightly
underdesigned, because it does not address the possibility of multitenanted
households, with (for example) his&hers routing policies. (For example,
he uses a cable provider for access, she has a DSL paid for her by her job
so she can do her engineering activities from home).
| and given the degree of harm that NATs have done to IPv4, I hope they
| never rear their ugly heads in IPv6.
Noel's right, your knees must really hurt!
| what's the point of traditional multihoming anyway if you have to
| have NATs? you might as well do IPv6-style multihoming - assign a
| separate address prefix to every incoming connection and let the
| hosts sort it out. you don't need NATs to do this.
The NAT function here is subsumed into the host.
Pushing NATs into hosts is an attractive idea, but it does
require alot more knowledge of the network in the hosts, and
one can gain no economies of scale that a standalone NAT shared
by many hosts can achieve. Also, if the hosts themselves are
singly homed to a particular LIS (e.g. an ethernet with hosts and a
router with interfaces to several providers), they will have a
devil of a time incorporating a NAT function.
| NATs can be a transition tool for connecting between IPv4 and IPv6,
| but NATs should never get in the way of a native IPv6 connection.
They will, though.