RE: Requirement document last call (let's focus!)

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

Michel Py wrote:
> I'm afraid I have to disagree with both Tony and Masakata here.
> Although the goal is not easy to achieve, a good proposal will try to
> send
> The traffic over the "best" path.
This approach is doomed to fail. "Best" is a function of where you are
looking from, what your goals are, and how many distinct policies get
applied along each path.

> I am not saying that we should
> prohibit
> policy routing for egress traffic, but it would be more elegant to let
> the
> multihoming solution decide instead of having the site try to control
> it.
I am sorry, but there is no way I am going to allow a destination site
to dictate that I send my traffic over my highest cost path. It is
unfortunate that BGP has fostered the complete fantasy that a site can
control the traffic towards itself. The holder of the packet is always
in control of where it gets sent, and that is true for each hop along
the path.

> inbound load balancing can be controlled, not by the receiver
> but by the
> sender.....
This makes no sense.

Tony