RE: requirements draft revision

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Joe Abley wrote:
> A "transit provider", T,  of enterprise E is an enterprise
> which provides connectivity to the Internet for E which
> extends beyond the part of the Internet operated by T. T
> and E are directly connected.

That solves the problem by restricting the definition to match that specific
example, but I thought one of the points of multi6 was to address the
general problem for all *transit* providers caused by multihomed sites. With
this approach there is no definition for the transit providers not connected
to E, so when we move on to the next example of things that need to work the
definition will no longer fit.

> We are not presupposing a routing solution. We are simply
> stating a requirement.

Oh but you are presupposing a routing solution in that you are expecting one
of the transit providers connected to E to provide routing for the site
prefix from the other one. While this is an IPv4 requirement, it is optional
for IPv6 when the goal is simply keeping the routes straight between the
attached providers.

Tony