lichun li wrote: > Indeed, TIVs should be addressed in routing layer. However, solving > the problem in routing layer may involve things like changing routing > protocol and replacing routers, which will pay some time and high > price. In contrary, relay is an easier solution for applications > sensitive to delay, and is already used somewhere. I'm sorry you lost me here. TIVs are the result of routing policies, I don't think there's anything wrong with current routing protocols, at least not in a way that significantly influences TIVs. > Relay can cause layer violation. Operators may not like it. But > operator's participating in relay selection may reduce the harm of > layer violation. If a routing policy makes traffic flow from AS A to AS B on a slow yet capable direct link instead of rerouting it through a fast connected AS C, well, I'm pretty sure that policy entirely reflects the operator's will. If they were actually interested in making traffic follow different paths, they'd just need to reconfigure the routers without recurring to application level relay (that, BTW, basically doubles bandwidth costs) and relay selection. -- Ciao, Enrico
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.