RE: additional requirement: cooperation

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

I think this one should be changed as follows:

"A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site
and its transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation
directly between the transit providers, EXCEPT when the transit
providers are directly connected to one another".

"Directly connected" means that the traffic from/to the two
concerned transit providers does not have to cross any AS other
than one owned by either provider.

We don't want to require providers to peer or something with
every other provider in the world, but some cooperation with
other providers connected directly, which typically means a
peering agreement or being in the same NAP is acceptable.

In other words, for the same reason some cooperation might be
needed between a site and its transit providers, some might
also be needed between a transit providers and its neighbors.

If unchanged, this sentence is very restrictive and would make
impossible multihoming as it is done today (not that I recommend
it..) because the necessary BGP peering between transit providers
would be considered cooperation.

Michel.


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@nlri.org]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:33 AM
To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: additional requirement: cooperation

A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site
and its transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation
directly between the transit providers.