Margaret,
I agree completely with your analysis -- it turns out that the
two of us have been saying much the same thing for some time
now. But I suggest that the situation with one of your four
points is even a bit worse, IMO, than the way you describe it...
--On Tuesday, 23 November, 2004 07:03 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
<margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
(3) There is work ongoing in the multi6 and hip WGs to address
one of the reasons why enterprises want provider-independent
address space -- enterprise-level multihoming. However, the
solutions being considered there will not eliminate the other
primary reason why enterprises want provider-independence --
avoiding dependence on a particular ISP, which can lead to
lock-in, higher prices and/or unplanned renumbering events due
to provider network changes, failures, mergers, etc.
...
I think we are going to see (and have already started to see in
the more technical part of the community) demand for multihoming
at the SOHO and even home level, not just the enterprise level.
The reason for this is that, if a small office or home user
views the Internet as a critical resource, and providers to that
scale of operation offer only a "best efforts" service level in
which time-to-repair measured in days is not atypical, the most
efficient choices involve two (or more) providers, rather than
the "business" service those providers are willing to sell (with
more addresses, but, typically, the same lack of credible
guarantees). The thing that makes this problem different from
the enterprise ones is that it imposes the essentially the same
constraints on the knowledge and effort required for
configuration (i.e., just about zero) that we now see for home
networks (as you point out). It is not clear to me that the
multi6 and hip efforts are effectively addressing that point,
even if solutions could be built on top of them.
And, of course, if such a requirement originates from the home
and SOHO markets, and the solution requires public address
space, the demand for long-term, renewable, direct-allocation
prefixes will be much greater than one would predict from
assuming enterprise use only.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf