[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on requirements-05
On vrijdag, mei 9, 2003, at 18:40 Europe/Amsterdam, Pekka Savola wrote:
Also, the text may be rather ambiguous as it doesn't seem to match
common understanding of what "transit provider" typically is.
Really? Can you list some examples of conflicting use of the term
"transit"? It seems like a reasonably well-defined word to me.
Again, this came up when the draft was originally published with
definitions. There is no common understanding of what "transit
provider" is; different people add different nuances to their
understanding of the phrase, which is why the definitions are there.
I suggest replacing the definitions:
This is completely confusing. It seems we lack a definition for "site",
and as a non-native speaker I might be missing something, but the word
"site" makes me think along the lines of a building site: a single
location. Transit providers tend to operate networks that span more
than a single location.
A "transit provider" operates a site
If we're going to change wording, let's do away with "site" and replace
it with "AS". This one is well-defined and used extensively in
discussions about interdomain routing.
Or "the rest of the world" for short. I don't think we should consider
the plight of those selling or buying partial transit as it leads to
which directly provides
connectivity to the Internet to one or more external sites.
problems with multi-address solutions.
And it doesn't have to be directly.
A transit provider's site is directly connected to the sites for
which it provides transit.
A "direct Internet services provider" (ISP) provides a physical
and Internet connectivity to the site. The connectivity extends
the ISP's own network.
Ok, now define the internet...
Logical connections work too.
note: I believe the term "physical connection" is generic enough to
include a wireless connection, but I'm not a native speaker, so..
"connection" is even more generic.
An alternative would be to define a "direct transit provider" and use
instead of "transit provider", but I'm not sure whether that's any
What's the thing with directness???
I mean, there's no independence in the sense that you are still
dependent on the provider who allocated you the numbers. You can't
paying that guy and continue to announce your long-prefix route to
other transit providers.
Can't stop paying? Why can't? You just keep advertising the route,
A quick message to the NOC of the remaining ISPs can do wonders in this
regard. Many ISPs only accept more specifics out of other ISP's
prefixes if that ISP is ok with it. Some don't accept them at all.
specifics if you need to, and there's no one stopping you.