[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Requirement document last call (let's focus!)
At 02:59 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, Vijay Gill wrote:
> > > For example, suppose site E obtains transit from transit providers T1
> > > and T2, and there is long-term congestion between T1 and T2. The
> > > multihoming architecture MUST allow E to ensure that in normal
> > > operation none of its traffic is carried over the congested
> > > interconnection T1-T2. The process by which this is achieved MAY be
> > > a manual one.
> > Why are we adding the caveat of the last sentence? Manual anything is bad.
>Unfortunately, while we may like to say manual anything is bad, there
>always will be circumstances where some tweaking will have to be done.
>There are just no getting around that fact.
In today's world, if both sides announce an aggregation and not a specific
route for E, this will happen. But if the problem is congestion, that is
solved with more bandwidth and or less customers (i.e., letting the market
decide). Why does this need to be written into a requirements document?
Or maybe I misunderstand the point you are making. What are you thinking
of that needs to be manual? Is it the coordinated injection of a specific