[ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document
Howard, W. Lee
Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Mon Oct 16 09:48:13 EDT 2006
- Previous message: [ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document
- Next message: [ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> >> why the assumption of only two and why the assumption of no te? > >> i want voip out the left and quake out the right, for example. > > You're special, and clueful, and can build complex networks. > > If we're not allowed to make assumptions, we can't define > requirements, > > and can't do anything. > > the assumption to make is that, if the home user is multi-homed, > that they did it for a reason. and that reason is likely traffic > engineering. the two most common reasons for this in the states > are precisely the examples i gave, voip and games. Sorry, I misunderstood. So you think the requirements are the same for residential users and ISPs? I'm having a failure of imagination, and can only imagine residential "TE" where a user gets a PA prefix from both her VOIP provider and her gaming provider. Maybe she wants failover with her prefixes, but I don't see TE as I understand it. If true, we need a BGP with more knobs than the current one, but which is usable by Joe Homeuser. Lee
- Previous message: [ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document
- Next message: [ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list