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

Re: comments on requirements-05

On vrijdag, mei 9, 2003, at 18:40 Europe/Amsterdam, Pekka Savola wrote:
Also, the text may be rather ambiguous as it doesn't seem to match the
common understanding of what "transit provider" typically is.


Again, this came up when the draft was originally published with
definitions. There is no common understanding of what "transit
provider" is; different people add different nuances to their
understanding of the phrase, which is why the definitions are there.




Really? Can you list some examples of conflicting use of the term 
"transit"? It seems like a reasonably well-defined word to me.




I suggest replacing the definitions:





   A "transit provider" operates a site




This is completely confusing. It seems we lack a definition for "site", 
and as a non-native speaker I might be missing something, but the word 
"site" makes me think along the lines of a building site: a single 
location. Transit providers tend to operate networks that span more 
than a single location.



If we're going to change wording, let's do away with "site" and replace 
it with "AS". This one is well-defined and used extensively in 
discussions about interdomain routing.




   which directly provides
   connectivity to the Internet to one or more external sites.




Or "the rest of the world" for short. I don't think we should consider 
the plight of those selling or buying partial transit as it leads to 
endless

problems with multi-address solutions.



And it doesn't have to be directly.




   A transit provider's site is directly connected to the sites for
   which it provides transit.



Nonsense.




   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.


Ok, now define the internet...

Logical connections work too.




note: I believe the term "physical connection" is generic enough to
include a wireless connection, but I'm not a native speaker, so..



"connection" is even more generic.




An alternative would be to define a "direct transit provider" and use 
that

instead of "transit provider", but I'm not sure whether that's any

better.


What's the thing with directness???




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.



A quick message to the NOC of the remaining ISPs can do wonders in this 
regard. Many ISPs only accept more specifics out of other ISP's 
prefixes if that ISP is ok with it. Some don't accept them at all.