Hannu, you are too far ahead. :-) I was still thinking on the incentives/ economic level. Whether we decide that an ingress link should be selected by the receiving side or by the sending side, I am sure we will eventually find a good technique for it. But let's first decide which approach would be preferable. (Feedback from the receiving side, as you mention, will certainly be necessary if we decide that the receiving side should select its ingress links.) But you seem to be in favor of letting the receiving side select. Is this right? And if yes, please elaborate what makes you think so. - Christian hannu.flinck@nsn.com wrote:
HelloI am wondering what triggers the egress indirection router to require fresh reachability information for a receiving edge? Doesn't this imply that the receiving edge indicates the need somehow?All this sounds quite complicated and fragile if communication between ingress and egress and mapping system is needed to accomplish somethingthat is already working through BGP.Why not just manage the tunnel end points between egress and ingress routers? If either of the tunnel end points want to change local their end point (in an managed way, not due to a failure), they will signal to their intention to the other end and let the remote side know what wouldbe the "next" tunnel end point.Maybe I am missing something here but how could the sending side know better what the receiving side wants?Regards Hannu
-- to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg