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@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram