North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Andre Oppermann
  • Date: Mon Oct 17 07:53:10 2005

[email protected] wrote:
Another alternative is to force-align allocation and topology in some way /other/ than by "Providers" (geographical allocation in whatever hierarchy, IX allocation, whatever), such that networks were easily aggregatable. Lots of objections though (the "providers and geography don't align" one though is ultimately slightly bogus, because with non-provider-aligned allocation policies in place it would be in providers interests to align their peering to match the allocation policy).
I think we need a researcher to sit down and figure out exactly what this would look like
in a sample city and a sample national provider.

This is one of those inversion situations where
we are turning the existing model inside out. Some
people may be familiar with the inversion of control in user interfaces that came about when
Windows/Macintosh became the standard UI.

Here, the suggestion is that netblocks should
be allocated to cities, not to providers. Within
a city, providers would get a subset of the city
address block to meet their local infrastructure
needs. They would interconnect with each other
a local exchange points to exchange local traffic
as Paul Vixie is suggesting here:

Addresses from other cities would be viewed as
a single aggregate for that city and these could
be even further aggregated at some regional level
such as Northwest, Southwest, Midwest, Southeast
and Northeast.
Err...  Sounds awfully like E.164.  Why don't we use phone number instead
of IP numbers?  We all know how well carrier phone number routing and number
portability works, don't we?

It's different than what we have now, but not
extremely different. It is doable with IPv6 without
any protocol changes because there is sufficient
reserve address space available. It meets the concept
of Internet as utility or mission-critical Internet
because it mandates local interconnect. The customer
point of view is that low latency and consistent
latency is best and that mandates local interconnect.
I'm sorry, but your geographical approach is broken by design.