North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Mon Mar 06 16:09:42 2006

--On March 6, 2006 12:46:51 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 6-mrt-2006, at 3:52, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>> fixed geographic allocations (another nonstarter for reasons which  
>> have been elucidated previously)
> What I hear is "any type of geography can't work because network
> topology != geography". That's like saying cars can't work because  they
> can't drive over water which covers 70% of the earth's surface.
No, it's more like saying "Cars which can't operate off of freeways
won't work" because there are a lot of places freeways don't go.
Hmmm... Come to think of it, I haven't seen anyone selling a car
which won't operate off of a freeway.

> Early proposals for doing any geographic stuff were fatally flawed  but
> there is enough correlation between geography and topology to  allow for
> useful savings. Even if it's only at the continent level  that would
> allow for about an 80% reduction of routing tables in the  future when
> other continents reach the same level of multihoming as  North America
> and Europe.

I've got no opposition to issuing addresses based on some geotop. design,
simply because on the off chance it does provide useful aggregation, why
not.  OTOH, I haven't seen anyone propose geotop allocation as a policy
in the ARIN region (hint to those pushing for it).


If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.

Attachment: pgp00016.pgp
Description: PGP signature