RE: requirements draft comments.

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

Randy Bush wrote:
> i guess you have not been tracking drafts in the idr wg
There are only so many hours in a day.

> for a non-trivial but useful set of folk, ISPd may not be able to take
> traffic to all destinations.  there are significant sites
> which peer with a
> few folk and buy transit from others.  sometimes they both
> peer and transit
> another network, with separate contracts and maybe separate
> connections.
I was not trying to imply that more complex interconnects are out of
scope, but that the requirements of the words in the current draft can't
be met by the simple case when a site simply defaults to one provider
when the connection is up. Either the wording needs to be softened to
SHOULD, or the default case should be explicitly addressed.

Tony