Subject: [GROW] (no subject)

From: "Murphy, Sandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:50:54 +0000

>>If the leaker network can not handle the leaked traffic, that poor
>>user experience could translate to unreachability.  (OTOH, if the
>leaker network was hugely provisioned, maybe better experience for
>>user, but still cost/business problem for ISP.)
>
>Heh, yeah, Sandy, better experience - perhaps you should write a "benefits of route leaks draft".
>
>Sheesh...

I am happy to reword my comment to better please you.  How about "Even in the unlikely case that the leaker network was so well provisioned that the user experience actually improved, it is still (always?) a cost/business problem for ISP".

But your comment does not help to further understand route leaks.  Any thoughts there?

--Sandy

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:20:56 -0600

On 2013-03-13 07:50, Murphy, Sandra wrote:

> I am happy to reword my comment to better please you.  How about
> "Even in the unlikely case that the leaker network was so well
> provisioned that the user experience actually improved, it is still
> (always?) a cost/business problem for ISP".

Is there a question in that?  If so, it's unclear what it is...

> But your comment does not help to further understand route leaks.

Sandy, I don't understand what you're aiming for here.  The GROW WG 
just had this discussion and believes "leaks" are an issue, and as a 
result adopted the draft as a WG item.

What's your objective?

-danny