[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > > > What is more troublesome is that the IXP business model must be so that it
> > > > has upstream connectivity, and advertises the aggregate to the Internet.
> > > What are you talking about???
> > Who will advertise the aggregate for e.g. a country if not the IXP? Why
> > would any ISP do it an attract traffic it gets zero payment for?
> Excellent point. From the draft: "Note that this
> behavior is completely hidden from the peer: the aggregates are only
> used within the local network, they are not announced to peers. To avoid
> confusion with regular provider aggregatable routes, the term "pilot
> routes" will be used for this type of private aggregates."
> Simply reading the draft will clear up most (all?) of this confusion.
> It's 10 pages, so this should be doable:
I'd read it before, but I did not understand certain unstated assumptions.
I've glanced through it again.
This seems to solve a non-problem, that is, how PI addresses are handled
inside an ISP or between its peers.
The real problem this does not seem to take a stance on is (but there is
some text in section 10, not sure if related), who is advertising the PI
routes to the default free zone (or upstreams, in any case)? If these are
not aggregates, would explode. If these are aggregates, the upstream and
the ISP will have handle traffic that does not belong to it, because by
the definition of geoPI addressing, it is not completely aggregatable --
else it would not be useful at all for multihoming etc. purposes.
I guess the goal(s) of the draft should be stated as clearly as possible,
in the abstract or the introduction section.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings