RE: PI/metro/geo [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development]

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

Randy Bush wrote:
> >> that most schemes folk have for new topologies have not been
> >> realistic in terms of routing table expansion, should not be 
> >> taken as isps wanting to suppress information.  that you 
> >> can't holiday on mars this weekend is not my fault.
> > I am not arguing that the ISP is wrong for wanting to cost 
> optimize, 
> > or simply stay afloat
> 
> i said nothing about cost, staying afloat, ...  i did not go 
> above layer four.

I don't know where you thought I was going, but I was talking about
staying afloat in the same sense as keeping the routers from melting
down, and cost optimization is a fundemental aspect of engineering.

> 
> > just that there are reasons behind the demand for the 'unrealistic 
> > topologies' and those reasons are just as valid even if the 
> proposed 
> > topologies are not.
> 
> that's nice.  but this is the internet ENGINEERING task 
> force.  we have the sad problems of dealing with reality.

My point was that the requirements of the edge sites are reality.
Ignoring them may make it easier to accomplish something, but is the
result useful?

Tony

> 
> randy
> 
>