On 04/14/06 at 11:05am -0700, Michel Py
<michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_):
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with
provider independence.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling
simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million
enterprise customers and ten billion total hosts to convince me.
The problem with geo PI aggregation is expectations: if we set any
aggregation expectations it won't fly because too many people have
legitimate concerns about its feasibility. Personally I think that some
gains are possible, but I'm not sure these gains will offset the amount
of work required.
I agree, especially in the near term. Aggregation is not required right
now, but having the *ability* to aggregate later on is a prudent risk
reduction strategy if today's cost to do so is minimal (as I think it is).
My $0.02 about geo PI: a strategy change is needed. Instead of
presenting geo PI as the solution that would give PI without impacting
the routing table (this will not fly because there are too few believers
and too many unknowns), present it as the icing on the cake of a
comprehensive non-geo PI proposal.
That's exactly what I'm pushing for. I'm in the process of brainstorming
with other interested parties (and potential co-authors) to put together
an ARIN public policy proposal that directs ARIN to assign PI netblocks in
a regular fashion instead of the current random (chronological) fashion
used for IPv4. As I stated above, I don't think aggregating is necessary
or wise just yet, but I think that setting things up now, to make it
possible to do so later if needed, is wise and prudent, and can be done
with little or no additional complexity (cost).
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf