Robin -
Alternatively, invoking ALT's potential for meshiness, the first ALT router might be a local one, not owned by whoever provides the address space. [...]
Any ALT deployment has to effect a trade-off between aggregation and provider-independence. If ALT is to aggregate EIDs, then an edge network E's entry to the ALT infrastructure will have to be at a particular ALT router, R1, that is defined by E's EID space. And this implies a dependence on R1's operator. Otherwise, if you want to avoid this dependence, you cannot aggregate. You need to make the same trade-off even if, as you describe, E's direct provider sets up an ALT router R2 to which E may connect. Then again: - You either prioritize aggregatability, in which case R2 must relay to R1. E then remains technically dependent on R1's operator, even though business relationships may be transitive from E to E's direct provider to R1's operator. - Or you prioritize independence from R1's operator, in which case R2 must connect to the ALT infrastructure directly. In this case you lose aggregatability.
Absolute, true, independence from any one "provider" whilst retaining a given IP address is probably too much to ask from a map-encap scheme. End-users need to choose their IP address provider with care.
My opinion is that, if we were going to change the Internet routing system for the purpose of scalable provider-independence, we better ensure that the new system reaches this goal fully, not half-heartedly. - Christian -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
