Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Cerowrt-devel Digest, Vol 31, Issue 4

[Mike O'Dell <mo@ccr.org>]

Having links from multiple providers "just work" is indeed a grand idea.

Unfortunately, IPv6 doesn't deal with multihoming any better than IPv4 doesn't;
in fact, it's pretty clearly worse.

you can get the bath water to run out a different hole by tipping
the bathtub, but you can't make in run *into* the bathtub the same way.

I agree that nested NATs are suboptimal and usually unnecessary.

As for falling off the cliff of bridging, it depends entirely
on how far you fall and what you land upon. 

The fundamental problem is that the L2 fabric needs dynamic routing
more sophisticated than a Spanning Tree. It's not hard to do and
is quite effective at solving the problems of transiting local
dynamic topology without annoying the L3 machinery. It even provides
for traffic engineering of different traffic types without having
to suffer through the myriad NO-OPs created by the IETF trying to solve
the problem in a network flat as road-kill on an Interstate.

	-mo