Subject: RE: [Speermint] Definition of "Peering"

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:09:13 -0400

We needn't endlessly debate whether or not speermint should accomodate
peering over only "IP networks" or only the "Public Internet" (and, in
turn, each of these terms is perhaps endlessly debatable).  It is clear
from list and f2f discussion that both are needed.  Which one is used,
and when, could depend upon a great number of factors.  We should not
exclude anything so early in the WG, IMHO.

Jason

> For example, one of the arguments I heard people raised at 
> IETF 65 was "what about this is the Internet?  The I in IETF 
> is for Internet, so this group is out of scope."  First, it 
> is obviously untrue that the IETF only concerns itself with 
> the ip network transport layer, nor of routing protocols to 
> create an Internet.  One need only look at the areas and 
> working groups to see that.  It's not only layer 3 protocols 
> being defined.  Second, there is one area actually titled 
> "Internet Area", yet even within that area are groups who's 
> entire existence in life is to define VPNs, at layers 2 and 3.
> 
> 
> How are VPNs the Internet?  Extending that idea, there are 
> IETF groups who are (or were last time I was at the IETF) 
> working to define how such VPNs can work between providers, 
> and bridge the VPNs together.  For me, if that is acceptable 
> work for the IETF, then there should also be a case for 
> allowing layer-5 VPNs to be bridged together.  And that's 
> only if you look at it one way (as L5 VPNs).  There are other 
> ways to look at it that I think make it acceptable as well.

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:35:45 -0700

> exclude anything so early in the WG, IMHO.

	Sorry about the delay in jumping in (post IETF travel,
	illness). In any event, I do agree with Jason
	here. However, this discussion has be excellent and has
	refined out thinking. There have been many suggestions
	about for improvments to the terminology draft in this
	thread (which I hope to get to this week), as well as the
	conclusion that we should split requirements out of that
	document.

	Dave