RE: Next question...

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

|   > Tony Li wrote: 
|   > Would you believe that it's because I am an idiot?
|   
|   No. Find a better excuse. What were you doing at the same 
|   time you wrote
|   this? What did you drink before?


Diet Pepsi, I swear! ;-)


|   > 2) Put the locators in the border router.  This frees the host
|   >    of the management burden, but makes it somewhat harder for the
|   >    host administrator to implement host specific policies without
|   >    the assistance of the administrator of the border router.  Host
|   >    specific policies can still be implemented, they just need to
|   >    be managed by the border router.  The number of unique host
|   >    policies can be a scalability issue for the border router.
|   
|   Much better. Now, what is the difference with what you 
|   wrote above and
|   the way TE is done today?


Typically today, there is NO TE within the site and almost nothing
at the SBR.  The easy way of doing outbound TE is to prioritize different
prefixes from the multiple providers in the SBRs routing table.  This
is easy if there's only one SBR, but folks frequently want two to 
protect against a single point of failure.  In that case, the SBRs have
to be linked with IBGP so that they make consistent policy decisions.

TE within a transit domain is another matter entirely, of course.

Tony