RE: Update to Provider Independent addressing format drafts

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

Matt Crawford wrote:
> It seems to me that a Wall Street prefix would not be announced by
> (or accepted by peers of) an upstream provider in Chicago, or perhaps
> even Connecticut.  So traffic using the Wall Street PI prefix might
> actually have to be routed through some location in New York.  This
> might be impractical.

If the prefix were to be announced at a Chicago exchange, one would
presume there was a circuit from the Wall Street entity's network to
that exchange. If their intent was to provide cleaner access to the
Chicago area, the providers downstream from the exchange would need to
decide to accept it as providing value to thier customers. If the intent
was to provide an alternate access point for global use, the providers
upstream from the exchange would need to decide if Chicago is where they
collectively want to establish the backup for the NY exchange. If they
chose DC instead, the Wall Street entity would need to understand that,
and realize the Chicago announcement would be for the local region only.

Tony