Re: Host Addressing Conventions [addr-conv 2.8]

[Paul Francis--formerly Tsuchiya <[e-mail]>]

>  
>  I'm a bit concerned about the idea of ``LAN-based'' addresses.  I
>  thought one of the problems we were trying to solve was the
>  ``multi-homed host problem''.  But unless I misunderstand something
>  here, it looks like it should be possible to replace all occurrences
>  of ``LAN'' with ``Area'' and have things still work.  (The
>  substitution of ``ESIS'' for ``ARP'' is left as an exercise for the
>  reader.)  Or perhaps when Paul wrote ``LAN'' he meant something akin
>  to what I mean by an ``Area''.
>  

No, I mean LAN.  I really like LAN based addressing.  It
seems to me a very natural place to put an address boundary--
address follows topology.....

As for multi-homing, it is solved in another way....the host gets
multiple addresses, a Pip host picks one, and switches to the other
if it gets a PCMP Packet Not Delivered indicating that one LAN
can't be reached.

(Anyway, even with areas, you haven't completely solved the
multi-homing problem.  A host might be multi-homed to multiple
areas).

PX