RE: requirements draft revision

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Tony Hain wrote:

> > Many organizations, including the networks I've worked on, have
> > specific communities that can be used to color prefixes, such
> > that the routing policy is changed for those prefixes.

> This works within the scope of the community. As soon as it violates some
> higher-level policy of an arbitrary third-party though it will be ignored.
> My point was simply that multi6 requirements can't be setting us up to do
> more than current technology allows. The wording needs to be precise so that
> it requires continuing current practice without expanding the scope
> unrealistically.

I think it is reasonable to require that connectivity to the rest of the
world over one transit provider should be unimpaired whatever the
connectivity status (good, degraded or non-existent) between two transit
providers. (But remember you need this line when your link to one of the
transit providers fails!)

This is what happens today because a network will prefer to send traffic
directly to a customer rather than over another network (because of the lower
administrative distance of IGPs and/or the shorter BGP path).

So a solution that depends on just one transit provider announcing an
aggregate and sending traffic to a second transit provider that doesn't
announce a more specific would break this requirement.

Iljitsch van Beijnum