Re: policy support [was Re: load-balancing]

[Ben Black <ben@layer8.net>]

I believe the WGs _do_ have customers.  In this case, they are network
operators.  In turn, the constituents of the WG (who have been posting
their views as network operators, see above) have customers whose needs
must be met.  To presume that WG products are developed and released
into a vaccuum is to waste your time and effort.  This WG must provide
solutions for network operators or it has no purpose, just as any
proposal for use by network operators must meet their needs, not
dictate to those operators.


Ben

On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:23:26PM +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Ben;
> 
> > > > if they are not, then the wannabe wg should move from the ops area to some
> > > > place that wants to indulge in fantasy.
> > > 
> > > They are irrelevant.
> > > 
> > > The problem is the size of global routing table increased by
> > > multihoming, regardless of whatever the requirements for
> > > multihoming are.
> > > 
> > > The goal is to suppress the size of global routing table.
> > > 
> > 
> > Actually, the goal is to best serve customers.
> 
> Goal of what?
> 
> WGs have no customer.
> 
> 						Masataka Ohta