On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Jim Bound wrote:
> We don't have to answer to you or anyone else. Obviously people don't
> care about your issue as I see no support for your proposed wall against
> the aggregation draft. I think its in the decision of the chairs now.
Incorrect. There has bave been questions about the proposed value of this
I-D.
> As far as no network operators care I called two ISP network operators
> today and both will pilot jessica's proposal simply to see if
> implementors can make it work. They like I feel no duty to respond to
> "you". Got it!!!!
A better metric would probably be asking some CUSTOMERS. Speaking as a
customer, I'd just get two separate lines with two address blocks from
each provider to ensure against _autonomous system wide isp failure_,
before I'd trust an bit of data to this scheme. This is much more common
than people seem to realize, having been in midst of several on a global
scale. Including some interesting area wide failures TODAY (see thread on
nanog).
Wearing my provider hat, I _assure_ you we can barely get standard point
to point circuits up amongst ourselves, much less co-ordinate setup of
selective routing. Special casing does not scale.
MBONE and 6BONE are set up as special cases with engineers working on
them, but trying to get something on this scale for several thousand
customers just isn't going to work.
/vijay
>
> regards,
> /jim
>
Vijay Gill |The (paying) customer is always right.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Piercarlo Grandi
http://umbc.edu/~vijay | Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get
These are my opinions only. | sucked into jet engines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
