[75754] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Mon Nov 22 18:46:46 2004
In-Reply-To: <200411222042.iAMKg7O8022254@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:45:24 +0100
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 22-nov-04, at 21:42, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>> 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?
There is no enforcing as such. All the gory details are in
http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr
-01.txt
> 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?
Well, suppose we know 212/8 is used in Europe. A network that is
present in say, North America and Europe then has the routers in Europe
that talk to the routers in America filter out all 212/8 more specifics
and only announce the aggregate instead. In the simple version this
only works if there is full interconnection for all 212/8 destination
in Europe. In the more complex version there is selective deaggregation
for some destinations to overcome lack of local peering.
