Re: Auto-tunnel Rant

[Pieter Liefooghe <pieter@info.vub.ac.be>]

Jared Mauch wrote:

>         My concern becomes that lets say streaming vendor X
> becomes a customer of my global ip network because we support
> native multicast and offer this as a service.  I am not opposed
> to tunneling over equipment within my network that does not support
> pim-sm, ssm, etc..  What I am opposed to is now the rest of
> the non-multicast enabled internet turns my routers into
> big tunneling machines to provide services across my public and
> private peering links to other networks customers that do not
> have multicast deployed.

Due to lack of time I was unable to present all different possible deployment
scenarios as I intended, but the CastGate architecture has a solution for you
concerns.
In the CastGate architecture, you as an ISP can deploy your own Tunnel Database
Server to enforce a local policy.
You can make sure that only YOUR customers get tunnels (....Or even only those who
have paid for it - when interfaced via Radius), you are not required to
participate in the "Global" effort! (though it would be nice ;-) )
The deployment of the Tunnel Database is very simple just indicate for which of
your own networks you want to enable tunnels (omit country entry) and install some
Tunnel Servers (possibly relay Tunnel Servers) at "strategic" locations in your
network.

This is different from the other proposals who - as described in their drafts -
have no way to enforce a policy.

In the CastGate architecture, if one tunnel end-point does not want to act as
tunnel point for a certain client, then the client can still find a tunnel
end-point located in the country or the region (so called public tunnel servers).
All other tunnel proposals - especially the AMT draft doesn't have a solution for
this because the anycast will always yield the same relay who is the "nearest".
The Auto tunnel proposal by Ross, does have a solution for this...it travels up
the path towards the sender to find a router to terminate the tunnel... but
whatever happens the traffic is anyway going to go through the downstream routers
(also the router who decided not to terminate the tunnel).

Pieter