Re: [Banana] Reaching Consensus on Problem Statement

[Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:14 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> (2) An unmanaged multi-access network may have multiple links from a single provider (e.g. DSL/LTE, or two LTE links), or multiple links from different providers (e.g. Cable & LTE, or DSL and LTE from different providers).   We need a solution that will work in both cases, without requiring cooperation between multiple providers.  Therefore, our solution needs to work with existing IP address assignment, ingress filtering, and reverse path routing mechanisms.
> 
> This is not fully clear to me. I don’t think it's important who owns the link (I mean if you buy connectivity from one provider you can just use it); it’s important who owns the proxies. And the ingress proxy can only be own by one party (because it’s one box) however that box can simply use connectivity from different providers. I don’t see a problem there. The more interesting case is if the ingress and the egress proxy are not owned by the same party because this is the case where a proprietary protocol to exchange information between those two boxes would not work anymore. 

I included this paragraph because this was the subject of much discussion, and a scope change, leading into the BOF.  Maybe this is more like a requirement for solutions, though, than part of the actual problem statement.   I agree with you that items (1) and (4) in my original list are the crux of the interesting problem we are trying to solve, and I will work on simplifying the problem statement accordingly.

Margaret