hi all,
i also agree, the case should be left out to protocol configuration
abbie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Delphine Kaplan [mailto:delphine.kaplan@activia.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:39 AM
> To: Oliver Spatscheck
> Cc: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: CNAP/ RegionIDs ?
>
>
> Oliver Spatscheck wrote:
>
> > I think you raced some good points another question which
> comes to mind is how
> > those regions and redirection relate to BGP routing.
> Somebody (forgot who)
> > raced that point at the last IETF.
> >
> > For example, should regions have to match BGP CIDR block.
> >
>
> I don't think so.
>
> >
> > If not what does it help to redirect on layer 7 to surrogates
> > which are not close by on layer 3. Personally I think this should
> > be left up to the actual user of the protocol and should not
> > be part of the protocol definition but I would like to know
> > what other people think.
>
> Suppose we have the following scenario:
> CDNA <-> CDNB <-> CDNC
> with end user belonging to cidr block Z attached to CDNC.
> If CDNC is overloaded, and CDNA is also connected with
> same cidr block Z through a direct way using
> VPN/SLA ISPs, then CDNA will prefer to redirect the
> user to one of its own unloaded surrogate for better quality
> (with higher bill for end user for ex.).
> I think we should take this case into account.
>
> I agree this should be left up to protocol configuration ...
>
>
> >
> > Oliver
> >
>
>
>
>
>