North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 news
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
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. -- Andre