[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comments on requirements-05

On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 12:40 Canada/Eastern, Pekka Savola wrote:
I suggest replacing the definitions:

A "transit provider" operates a site which directly provides
connectivity to the Internet to one or more external sites. The
connectivity provided extends beyond the transit provider's own site.
A transit provider's site is directly connected to the sites for
which it provides transit.
[...]
with:

A "direct Internet services provider" (ISP) provides a physical connection
and Internet connectivity to the site. The connectivity extends beyond
the ISP's own network.
I don't see the reason for introducing a new term ("direct Internet services provider") which I have never heard used before in preference to one which I hear commonly used, in the exact sense in which it is defined in -05.

Does anybody else have an opinion about this?


2) simplicity for the internet and/or the site should be made
explicit.

3.1.5 Simplicity
I'm going to think some more about your comments here, and see if I can distill something pithy to cover it.


3.2.6 Cooperation between Transit Providers

A multihoming strategy may require cooperation between a site and
its
transit providers, but should not require cooperation (relating
specifically to the multihomed site) directly between the transit
providers.
[...]


Let's try to illustrate:

      Site S
    /      \
ISP A  --  ISP B
 |          |
Transit1 - Transit2  -- [ Internet ]
 |           \
[Internet]   [Internet]

Co-operation is currently a goal with Site S <-> ISP A and Site S <->
ISP
B.  It is not with ISP A <-> ISP B.

This doesn't take a stance on even more non-goal co-operation, with
e.g.
- Site S <-> Transit1
- ISP A <-> Transit1

[...]


There is nothing to prevent that, if the solution supports it, but IMO
it's better if the solution does not require co-operation with further
upstream transit providers.

Also note that there was another case: Site S interacting with the
Internet (ie. with folks it is not directly or indirectly paying money
to).  Co-operation must not be required there, I think.
Since these are goals, and not requirements, I'm not sure it's necessary or desirable (from the point of view of getting a message across) to enumerate every single possible case and permit, require or prohibit each in turn.

Maybe we could insert a comment like "The impact of any inter-provider cooperation that might be required to facilitate the multi-homing strategy should be examined and assessed from the point of view of operational practicality."

I mean, there's no independence in the sense that you are still
dependent on the provider who allocated you the numbers. You can't stop
paying that guy and continue to announce your long-prefix route to
other transit providers.
Can't stop paying? Why can't? You just keep advertising the route, more
specifics if you need to, and there's no one stopping you.
Similarly, there's nothing to stop you choosing any unadvertised space and using it as your own, but it does tend to make people upset and it's not something I would base a business on.

I will make some provisional edits to -05 and float them on the list today.


Joe