North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
> Look, we have two choices: we can make the addressing follow the 'net's > topology, or we can make the 'net's topology follow the addressing. They > *have* to be connected, *we* only get to chose which comes first. > > Making the addresses follow the topology means that we have a lot more > flexibility to make the connectivity respond to traffic patterns, policy > demands, etc, etc; the addresses then trail along behind. If the topology has > to follow the addressing, you *can't* have the topology be completely free to > respond to user's needs. Well, if we use a concept of dynamic communities, by using tools to constantly analyze 'show ip bgp' outputs, and compare against existing community strucutures, I think we can built a distribution filter that can isolate specific routes to where they need to be, providing only a very minimum of free transit to various providers. It encompasses a combination of geographic and provider based addressing, and would float between the two as migrations occur (probably on a weekly basis). I'm working on such a thing now. Don't know when I'll have a proposal finished, though. -- Dave Siegel President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc. (520)318-0696 Systems Consultant -- Unix, LANs, WANs, Cisco [email protected] User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP, http://www.rtd.com/ for an ISP."