[151302] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Thu Mar 15 10:27:28 2012
In-Reply-To: <20120315135825.GJ9891@leitl.org>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:46 -0400
To: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:57:10PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>> >> That's one reason why we should stay away from IPv6.
>> > What prevents you from using
>> > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n6/full/ncomms1063.html
>> > with IPv6?
>>
>> Though I didn't paid $32 to read the full paper, it's like
>> a proposal of geography based addressing.
>
> You can access the free full text at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.0267v2.pdf
Hi Eugen,
Geographic routing strategies have been all but proven to irredeemably
violate the recursive commercial payment relationships which create
the Internet's topology. In other words, they always end up stealing
bandwidth on links for which neither the source of the packet nor it's
destination have paid for a right to use.
This is documented in a 2008 Routing Research Group thread.
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg01781.html
If you have a new geographic routing strategy you'd like to table for
consideration, start by proving it doesn't share the problem.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
