International site?

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

In the last meeting, it was discussed that:

> >   at their motivations, timeframes and timeframe. Then look at shorter
> >   measures that may be applicable. The classification is 'minimal,
> >   'small', 'large' and 'international and the slides / draft has the
> >   details of the classification
> >
> > Matasaka Ohta: Do you mean that a site may be geographically separated?
> > Pekka Savola: yes
> > Matsakata Ohta: So full internal connectivity is a requirement for a
> >   'site'?
> > Pekka Savola: yes
> > Erik Nordmark: Its been very fuzzy as to what is a site and its in the
> >   charter. Its ranged from campus to organization with internal
> >   connectivity, and we don't need to decide what it is here again.
> >
> >   The motivations listed include ISP independence, redundancy, load
> >   sharing, and the various aspects of these three areas. Looking at the
> >   solutions and how they map to this classification it appears that 
> > multi-
> >   connecting (same ISP) has some relevance to some shorter timeframes 
> > in
> >   some instances. The presentation listed some mechanisms against
> >   timeframes (see presentation).

It should be pointed out that it is not so useful to call an
international entity with internal connectivity a site.

Such a entity may have a single locator for internal use.

Each region may have additional locators supplied from ISPs
local to the region.

However, it is not necessary that a region share locators of
other regions.

That is, hosts in such a entity does not have to have so much
locators.

							Masataka Ohta