Re: A minor correction

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

Also, I do know that, currently, large server farms have about 11
connections to the Internet that run at roughly 90% of the capacity, so
that they can gracefully tolerate a link failure. Whether these 11 links
feed into just one or many ISPs is something that I am not very certain.

regards,
ramki


On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, R.P. Aditya wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>
>