Greg,
Sorry if it seemed that I was misrepresenting your position.
I wanted to take up the specific point made in the previous post about
how flooding small announcements is prevented now, in order to assert
that there are customer desires fueling this and that those must be
handled in proposed solutions. I did not mean to imply that this was
the sole, or even main, point of your post.
I fully agree with what I do see as your main point, that if
there were other ways to get the customers the benefits they desire,
that they would not insist on using IP multi-homing. In addition to
transport layer multi-homing, Bob Moskowitz's HIP proposal
(draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-02.txt) and other architectural proposals
offer longer term potential solutions which deserve serious
consideration.
On a second point, though, I have to disagree with you that
short term solutions don't matter in the long term. There is a strong
urge in the Internet standards community to maintain backwards
compatibility, and that tends to mean that short term solutions
circumscribe the potential long term solutions. The current work to
get H.323 or SIP across addressing realms is a classic example: NATs
provide a solution to one problem (address space exhaustion), but
break signalling protocols which have to cross the address realm. The
efforts to fix that problem are circumscribed by how NATs work,
no matter how tortuous the efforts may seem.
best regards,
Ted Hardie