RE: Fwd: Minutes / Notes

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

Hi Pekka,

[...]

> However, I also think that one must apply some reason here.  For example,
> if you have have tunnels from two access routers to two ISP's ("site exit
> routers approach"), I don't think you have to care about connection
> survivability that much.
>
> ISPs' networks don't crash every other day (if they do, change the ISPs;
> we just can't design protocols to work around broken operational
> practices: that's going to fail, no matter what).  Might happen a couple
> of times during the year, at most, but I'm not convinced that's
> necessarily a huge problem.

Do you think that this is an acceptable solution fo very small sites?
I mean, suppose an scenario where very small site multihoming becomes very
frequent, so the number of those sites is very high.
site Exit router approach requires manual configuration of the tunnels by
both ISPs, so do you think that isps will be willing to do this for very
small sites?

An complementary approach would be to use some sort of tunnel broker so that
the site itself could configure its own tunnels, so the isps operators do
not have to deal with this, what do you think?

Regards, marcelo

>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:38 PM
> > > To: J. Noel Chiappa; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Fwd: Minutes / Notes
> > >
> > > Noel,
> > >
> > > |    This is only important if you want TCP connections to be
> > > |    able to survive
> > > |    having an incoming link fail (i.e. the address on the
> > > |    local end becomes
> > > |    unreachable to the rest of the network). This may not be
> > > |    an important goal
> > > |    (e.g. the typical web site wouldn't care).
> > >
> > > I believe that the WG has come to rough consensus that this is,
> > > in fact, an important goal for us to solve.  There are
> > > numerous practical applications that drive this.  More generally,
> > > we (IETF, vendors) are being asked to make the Internet safe
> > > for "mission critical" applications and having broken TCP
> > > connections is simply unacceptable.  Many applications today
> > > are being outsourced: backups, storage, business applications,
> > > interactions within an 'extra-net', etc.
> > >
> > > Tony
> >
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>