|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
On 22-nov-04, at 17:53, Mohacsi Janos wrote: And don't forget that you still have to change your phone number when you move a great enough distance. In IP we somehow feel it's important that there are no geographical constraint on address use at all. That's a shame, because even if we aggregate by contintent that would save up to four times in the number of entries in the routing table of any router. Then why geographic based aggregated IPv6 addresses disposed? Geographic based addresses can solve the agregation quite nicely.The general objection (apart from incorrect assumptions based on old incomplete work) is that network topology and geography don't correlate. My counter-objection is that the correlation doesn't have to be 1 to be able to take advantage of it when it's present. Unfortunately the uniqueness can be problematic.... How do you mean?
|