RE: requirements draft revision

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

Joe Abley wrote:
> Someone two hops away with whom you don't have a direct
> relationship is not a transit provider, even though they
> might carry your traffic.

Somehow I don't think this is a globally recognized definition of the term
'transit provider'. It also unnecessarily focuses the discussion on one tiny
segment of the problem space. As I recall, the group's charter is to
minimize the impact to the entire routing system (read that all transit
providers), not just the ones directly attached to multihomed sites.


> > > We are not presupposing a routing solution. We are simply
> > > stating a requirement.
> > ... <snip>
> That is the mechanism by which this requirement is met in the
> current multihoming practice with v4.

And it is obvious you don't see the inconsistency between your statements.


> There may be other mechanisms that meet that requirement in
> a new v6 architecture.

How can there be? You keep insisting the requirement as 'the need for every
provider to accept and provide internal routing for the prefix of another
provider'. That is not the requirement, it is the current mechanism. If you
insist that carrying foreign prefixes is the requirement, there can't be any
other mechanism by definition.

The real requirement is that 'any enterprise is able to acquire services
from an arbitrary set of providers, and have a mechanism to keep the routing
straight between those providers such that traffic between the enterprise
and customers of any one provider will not transit another provider'.


Tony