[89257] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Mon Mar 6 06:47:30 2006
In-Reply-To: <3E1B270A-4CBF-4E7F-9200-B5F03B60C9E5@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:46:51 +0100
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 6-mrt-2006, at 3:52, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> fixed geographic allocations (another nonstarter for reasons which
> have been elucidated previously)
What I hear is "any type of geography can't work because network
topology != geography". That's like saying cars can't work because
they can't drive over water which covers 70% of the earth's surface.
Early proposals for doing any geographic stuff were fatally flawed
but there is enough correlation between geography and topology to
allow for useful savings. Even if it's only at the continent level
that would allow for about an 80% reduction of routing tables in the
future when other continents reach the same level of multihoming as
North America and Europe.
