On 6/19/08 10:44 PM, William Herrin allegedly wrote:
The requirement is that end users (meaning folks who operate servers
in this case) be able to change service providers:
1. Without a major overall effort, and
2. Without requiring any changes outside of the end user's
administrative control.
I don't believe the second one. First there's simple lower layer
connectivity -- of course you need permission from a NSP if you want to
receive traffic. Second there's routing. I see no way for packets to
me to traverse an intermediate provider without at least some node under
that provider's control being configured differently. If I use IP
addressing, it has to know that my addresses are reached via a
particular link, and a responsible NSP will not just believe a route
some new customer tosses at it. If someone sending a packet to me
encapsulates it all the way to a node I control, still the intermediate
NSP needs to know what link to send the packet on. If I use connection
setup of some kind, still there has to be some way for the intermediate
NSP to know how to reach even just one (representative) node in my
network. ... so changing your connectivity will always require changes
by the network you are connecting to.
Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to escalate the solution
(PI addresses) to requirement status. If at some point in the future
someone demonstrates an workable architecture which unequivocally
meets the original two requirements, we can just as easily reverse the
escalation. Given the history, the onus should be entirely on the
newcomer to demonstrate that they really have an in-practice workable
solution that doesn't require PI.
PI is a solution, not a requirement. The requirements are easy
multihoming and easy connectivity change.
--
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
