[157129] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Sun Oct 7 03:37:55 2012
In-Reply-To: <20592.31220.78712.550345@world.std.com>
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 00:37:38 -0700
To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 6, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
>=20
> We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right?
>=20
> So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. There's a
> smooth function from hostname->ipaddr->routing.
No.
Not just no, but hell no at the asserted communativity there, Barry.
That's not even Wrong...
And that's the point.
DNS to IP is in no way a smooth function. Hell no, for many networks. It's=
only true for the boringest customers. Try actual enterprise endpoints, or=
service providers.
IP to Routing is not smooth at predictable scales. Yes, it's in blocks, but=
a top-down view is at best fractal discontinuity.
IP to routing is smoother in IPv6 but as routing has two components - physic=
al location and net path - was made smoother in one only ( net path, and to t=
he degree that's smooth in physical location by accident...).
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone=
