[e2e] node addresses vs. interface addresses

[Bill Manning]

% 
% > Alas, that's not what most multi-homing users want; they want "site
% > multi-homing", where some organization (typically a company) 
% > wants robust
% > service and so is connected twice to the rest of the Internet 
% > fabric; these
% > connections are usually widely separated in the topology (typically by
% > signing up with two different ISP's).
% 
% In fact, if the multi-homed site is small enough, it is possible to
% provide each host/interface with as many addresses as the site has
% providers, and then use the host multi-homing technology to sort out
% which address is used when. This is clearly a trade-off: lower impact on
% the global routing fabric versus more complex site management. I would
% expect small sites such as home networks to lean towards "host
% multihoming", while large sites such as large corporations will simply
% pay their way into global routing.
% 
% -- Christian Huitema


	This seems counter-intuitive. The normal arguments I've heard
	indicate that small sites have less "clue" and so can't/won't
	deal with "complex site management" while large sites can
	afford and will spend to have a rich set of options.

	The normal example is DNS.  Small sites are generally considered
	to not have the time/patience/expertise to administer DNS locally.

	If v6 multi-homing technologies are robust enough for a small
	site, why would a large corporation "pay their way" when
	the host-based multihoming solutions work so well?

-- 
--bill