North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
--On March 6, 2006 12:46:51 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <email@example.com> 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). Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.