No Subject

[Ramakrishna Gummadi <ramki@cs.berkeley.edu>]

> 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.

Internal lack of capacity seems a valid technical reason; this should be
addressed in the SLA between the provider and the subscriber. Note,
however, that we
are not asking one provider to carry traffic, tunneled or otherwise, that
*exceeds* the subscriber connectivity bandwidth. The amount of traffic
would in no (significant) way be altered if the multihomed subscriber
became singlehomed, and received/sent all the traffic along the original
line.

> Customers will be forced to multihome only with providers who have
agreed to
> work together;

This is a difficult question for me to answer. But what kinds of
arrangements are drawn up for carrying multicast traffic, where these
kinds of political problems are potentially more severe?

Also, I am not sure if this wg should outlaw any proposals based on
political reasons alone...If so, we probably should have the rough
guidelines rewritten down in the requirements document.

thanks,
ramki