Re: A minor correction

["R.P. Aditya" <aditya@grot.org>]

The crux of the problem with the tunnel approach, and/or the conditional
announcement approach is not technical, it is that it requires a level of
inter-provider cooperation that experience has shown is not likely to exist.
Requiring it will likely engender yet more resistance to migrating to v6.

Furthermore, it is more complex for the customer and providers. I can easily
envision scenarios where one provider will refuse to create a tunnel to
certain other providers based on politics or even internal lack of capacity.

Customers will be forced to multihome only with providers who have agreed to
work together; providers will have to trust customers to send them automatic
messages to make what amount to TE decisions within their network. Just
getting providers to accept well-known communities (saying nothing of getting
them to tell you) is painful now.

Adi

On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:
> Sorry for this, but the following line:
> 
> > If ISP2 has problems, and links L3 become unusable, R1 tries to setup a
> 
> in my previous mail should read:
> 
> If ISP2 has problems, and links *L2 and* L3 become unusable, R1 tries to
> setup a (etc.)
> 
> -ramki
> 
>