[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lind-v6ops-isp-scenarios-01.txt

To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lind-v6ops-isp-scenarios-01.txt
From: Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:17:29 +0100 (CET)
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <131c01c39df8$fafc6100$870a0a0a@consulintel.es>
References: <0059728F-09EA-11D8-AB34-000A9598A184@kurtis.pp.se> <131c01c39df8$fafc6100$870a0a0a@consulintel.es>

> We are working already with L3 IXs also ... (www.euro6ix.org).

According to a relatively common definition of what an IX is, the
above is a contradiction in terms, and I tend to agree.

When you say "L3" you implicitly drag along "will need to pick a
routing policy", and it can therefore not serve as a policy-less
interconnect between different ISPs, but rather becomes an ISP
itself.

Regards,

- Håvard

References:
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lind-v6ops-isp-scenarios-01.txt
  - From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lind-v6ops-isp-scenarios-01.txt
  - From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>

Prev by Date: Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding
Next by Date: Re: v6ops-v6onbydefault: link-locals and AI_ADDRCONFIG
Previous by thread: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lind-v6ops-isp-scenarios-01.txt
Next by thread: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-lind-v6ops-isp-scenarios-01.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread