Subject: Re: your mail

From: Ramakrishna Gummadi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:48:26 -0700 (PDT)

> Furthermore, it is more complex for the customer and providers. I can
easily
> envision scenarios where one provider will refuse to create a tunnel to
> certain other providers based on politics or even internal lack of
capacity.

Internal lack of capacity seems a valid technical reason; this should be
addressed in the SLA between the provider and the subscriber. Note,
however, that we
are not asking one provider to carry traffic, tunneled or otherwise, that
*exceeds* the subscriber connectivity bandwidth. The amount of traffic
would in no (significant) way be altered if the multihomed subscriber
became singlehomed, and received/sent all the traffic along the original
line.

> Customers will be forced to multihome only with providers who have
agreed to
> work together;

This is a difficult question for me to answer. But what kinds of
arrangements are drawn up for carrying multicast traffic, where these
kinds of political problems are potentially more severe?

Also, I am not sure if this wg should outlaw any proposals based on
political reasons alone...If so, we probably should have the rough
guidelines rewritten down in the requirements document.

thanks,
ramki

---

From: "Jon (Taz) Mischo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:57:06 -0500 (CDT)

> became singlehomed, and received/sent all the traffic along the original

Yes you are.  You are asking a provider to take all traffic destined for a
specific egress point and re-route it through their network to a peering
point.  You are *DOUBLING* the traffic they are carrying for that
subscriber.

> kinds of political problems are potentially more severe?

Multicast traffic is a whole other ball of wax.

> guidelines rewritten down in the requirements document.

This isn't based on political reasons, but feasibility reasons, and we
don't outlaw, we just decide what we predict will be best.

-Taz
-- 
        "Be liberal in what you accept,
      and conservative in what you send."
--Jon Postel (1943-1998) RFC 1122, October 1989