Uneasy about metalevel=1 at the subscriber boundary

Garrett.Wollman@uvm.edu Mon, 14 June 1993 19:33 UTC

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 15:31:55 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Garrett.Wollman@uvm.edu
Message-Id: <9306141931.AA15623@sadye.emba.uvm.edu>
To: PIP mailing list <pip@thumper.bellcore.com>
Subject: Uneasy about metalevel=1 at the subscriber boundary

I am in the process of reading the Address Concentions draft that was
announced today.  I am somewhat uneasy about the assigment of
metalevel=1 and higher to be internal to subscribers.  It seems to me,
knowing how the topology looks in my general area, that it would make
more sense to put this boundary at metalevel=2.  The same problem
which you attempt to solve at the subscriber boundary could also be a
problem at the local-access-provider boundary.  Consider the case of
NEARnet, which---last I checked---was attached to NSFnet, AlterNet,
ESnet, TWBnet, and probably several others that aren't listed in the
map that I have.  This means a potential level-numbering conflict for
NEARnet (=== `LAP') relative to BP[1-4+].

(Frankly, I don't see the need for more than one metalevel on the
subscriber side, anyway.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman   | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... 
wollman@emba.uvm.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance.
uvm-gen!wollman      | It is a bond more powerful than absence.  We like people
UVM disagrees.       | who like Shashish.  - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant

Uneasy about metalevel=1 at the subscriber bounda… Garrett.Wollman
Re: Uneasy about metalevel=1 at the subscriber bo… Paul Francis--formerly Tsuchiya