Subject: (multi6) additional requirement: cooperation

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 18:07:13 -0800

Multi6 folk,

Maybe we need a clearer definition of "cooperation between transit
providers", or examples of what is cooperation and what is not.

- Is an exchange of routes (bgp peering) cooperation?
- Is a statically configured tunnel cooperation?
- Is a dynamically configured tunnel (6to4 like) cooperation?
- [add your own]

My take on it: yes yes no.
Everyone's comments welcome! Feel free to comment on my previous posting
about the performance requirement possibly being incompatible with the
cooperation one.

Michel.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:46:54 +0200 (EET)

> My take on it: yes yes no.

Mine: no *), yes, not sure what you mean but probably no.

*) it's unrealistic to believe transits don't exchanges routes.  Else we'd 
have to buy transit from every transit operator in the world.  To be more 
specific, co-operation would be having to set up some special exchanging 
of routes.

Ie, IMO co-operation requirement to me seems simple: do the transits have
to set up or take into consideration something specific, just for this
customer?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:54:59 -0800

| *) it's unrealistic to believe transits don't exchanges routes.  Else we'd 
 | have to buy transit from every transit operator in the world.  To be more 
 | specific, co-operation would be having to set up some special exchanging 
 | of routes.

I don't think the comments were there to preclude transits from
interacting.  Instead, the requirement is that we can still make
multihoming work even if the multihomed site selects two transit providers
who refuse to cooperate with each other.

Tony