RE: [RRG] Which Side to Control Ingress Link Selection?

[<hannu.flinck@nsn.com>]

Christian

 Talking conceptually, isn't it so that the receiving side announces its
reachablity, and if the reachability is too costly for the sender than
the sender should defer from sending, rather than contradicting how the
receiving party wants to be reachable? Again, how could the sending side
know better the local conditions that the receiving side? Each party
should have control of their own ends of the "link" or "tunnel".

Regards Hannu

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] On Behalf 
>Of ext Christian Vogt
>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 17:02
>To: louise.burness@bt.com
>Cc: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com; bill@herrin.us; rrg@psg.com
>Subject: Re: [RRG] Which Side to Control Ingress Link Selection?
>
>> Set me thinking. In some way whoever pays for the link 
>should be able 
>> to control what happens over it, which in many cases will mean the 
>> receiving network?
>
>Louise,
>
>the receiving edge network may actually be affected by the 
>choice of its ingress link in close to all cases.  In some 
>cases, though, it might in addition have an impact on the 
>sending edge network, because a particular ingress link at the 
>receiving side may force the sending side to use a particular 
>egress link, and this may have cost effects on the sending 
>side (consider peering relationships).
>
>Conceptually, though, by giving control to those who pay, we 
>would certainly be on the right track.
>
>- Christian
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

--
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