[75749] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Nov 22 15:42:32 2004
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>, NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:28:06 +0100."
<04ABB59C-3CC5-11D9-992B-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:42:07 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-524819459P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:28:06 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> The general objection (apart from incorrect assumptions based on old
> incomplete work) is that network topology and geography don't
> correlate. My counter-objection is that the correlation doesn't have to
> be 1 to be able to take advantage of it when it's present.
On the other hand, unless you have some way to *enforce* a higher correlation
than we already have, how do you propose to get a better result than we
currently (mostly accidentally) get via CIDR aggregation?
For instance, 212.x.y.z is "known" to be on one continent, and so on - but
how do you leverage that into a 212/8 routing entry?
--==_Exmh_-524819459P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFBok8fcC3lWbTT17ARArCtAJ93mYuQdkrYQ8nTqKAftsV0DdhXcACeKoW1
W7HXb6qvcbU2iltq3q+rhp8=
=nhdB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-524819459P--
