[76075] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Sensible geographical addressing [Was: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs yadda, yadda]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Tue Nov 30 19:43:36 2004
Reply-To: <swm@emanon.com>
From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
To: "'Iljitsch van Beijnum'" <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: "'NANOG list'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:43:05 -0500
In-reply-to: <1792C67C-432C-11D9-92FB-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Because then the specificity of the routes would become less relevant. If
you have two highways available to you, then it's 6 of one and half dozen of
another. You could care less which way you go.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:01 PM
To: swm@emanon.com
Cc: 'NANOG list'
Subject: Re: Sensible geographical addressing [Was: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs yadda,
yadda]
On 30-nov-04, at 23:32, Scott Morris wrote:
> At large NAP points (the higher order ISP's) this may make some sense
> because of the ubiquity of larger scale lines.
Why would geographical aggregation need bigger lines?
