[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RAM] First cut at routing & addressing problem statement



Dear Robin,
in your rewite the point 3 is missing. Is that a typo or a real miss.
thank you.
jfc

At 13:24 29/07/2007, Robin Whittle wrote:
   2.  Allows the following benefits for end-users, with the
       needs of larger organisational end-users being most
       important, but in principle extending to individual
       end-users's networks and single devices.  These benefits
       should support communications initiated by hosts in
       networks which have not adopted the new architecture -
       perhaps not with the same efficiency as to non-upgraded
       networks, or with as high an efficiency as between two
       hosts in upgraded networks.  Hosts in non-upgraded
       networks should suffer no loss of reliability in their
       communications with hosts in networks using the new
       architecture.

       A.  Portability of the address space when choosing
           another provider.

       B.  Multihoming with two or more providers, with
           robust session continuity.

       C.  Incoming Traffic Engineering where there are two
           or more links to providers.   This TE should be
           technically capable of being controlled by the
           end-user and/or the provider.


4. Provides meaningful benefits to the parties who bear the costs of deploying and maintaining the existing and new elements of the routing system.


_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram