Re: Options to consider [Re: tunneling [Was: Agenda for Vienna]]

[marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Pekka,

I agree that different sites will have very different requirements, so i
think that within the short term solutions, multiple complementary (not
competing) mechanisms are needed, so that a site can choose which
mechanism to implement in order to satisfy their particular needs.

Regards, marcelo 
> 
> I think we need to realize that these four options solve different 
> problems, and not all of them completely.
> 
> Based on a quick look, it seems to me that:
> 
>  - being able to switch ISP's without renumbering: 1), 3.2), maybe others
>  - redundancy due to link failures etc.: 1), maube 2), maybe 3)
>  - connection survivability (internal connections, external connections) 
> 1), 4), maybe some of 3)
>  - more fine-grained (ie. not 50/50) inbound traffic engineering: maybe 
> 1), 2)
>  - the maximum frequency of ISP (=prefix) changes: 1), maybe some of 3)
> 
> 
> I can summarize this at least to:
>  - even if we modify all the transport layers to be address-agile, it's 
> not enough.
>  - if we need connection survability (some might not), it needs to be 
> coupled with some other solution which provides capabilities for it (ie. 
> multiple addresses), or inherently provides it (PI address, GSE?)
> 
> So, I must conclude we must be very, very careful in determining our 
> options (and what exactly those options are good for).
-- 
marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
uc3m