Re: your mail

["Jon (Taz) Mischo" <taz@tazlore.com>]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:

> > 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.

Yes you are.  You are asking a provider to take all traffic destined for a
specific egress point and re-route it through their network to a peering
point.  You are *DOUBLING* the traffic they are carrying for that
subscriber.

> > 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?

Multicast traffic is a whole other ball of wax.

> 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.

This isn't based on political reasons, but feasibility reasons, and we
don't outlaw, we just decide what we predict will be best.

-Taz
-- 
        "Be liberal in what you accept,
      and conservative in what you send."
--Jon Postel (1943-1998) RFC 1122, October 1989