[546] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Siegel)
Mon Sep 25 16:40:21 1995
From: Dave Siegel <dsiegel@rtd.com>
To: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 13:28:00 -0700 (MST)
Cc: gherbert@crl.com, smd@cesium.clock.org, cidrd@iepg.org,
jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, nanog@MERIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9509251655.AA29447@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> from "Noel Chiappa" at Sep 25, 95 12:55:14 pm
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
> Look, we have two choices: we can make the addressing follow the 'net's
> topology, or we can make the 'net's topology follow the addressing. They
> *have* to be connected, *we* only get to chose which comes first.
>
> Making the addresses follow the topology means that we have a lot more
> flexibility to make the connectivity respond to traffic patterns, policy
> demands, etc, etc; the addresses then trail along behind. If the topology has
> to follow the addressing, you *can't* have the topology be completely free to
> respond to user's needs.
Well, if we use a concept of dynamic communities, by using tools to constantly
analyze 'show ip bgp' outputs, and compare against existing community
strucutures, I think we can built a distribution filter that can isolate
specific routes to where they need to be, providing only a very minimum
of free transit to various providers. It encompasses a combination of
geographic and provider based addressing, and would float between the two
as migrations occur (probably on a weekly basis).
I'm working on such a thing now. Don't know when I'll have a proposal
finished, though.
--
Dave Siegel President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc.
(520)318-0696 Systems Consultant -- Unix, LANs, WANs, Cisco
dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP,
http://www.rtd.com/ for an ISP."
