At 10:22 AM -0700 4/25/00, Bill Manning wrote:
Given the nature of trans-oceanic b/w vs. local b/w arguments I've heard
over the years, I'd say that these delegations are esentially constrained
to topological subregions and that for the most part, having the largest
incumbent ISPs in each region announce the respective /8 would roughly
meet the IPv6, heirarchical aggregation argument.
A few counter-points:
- As you know, I am a fan of geographic addressing (to provide a
real, scalable, user-friendly solution to most of the multihoming
and renumbering problems), but as you also know, proposals to do
any sort of geographic routing have usually been met with
hostility and derision from the ISP community and others, because
of the topological constraints and interchange requirements it
would impose on the ISPs. I welcome you to try, but don't get
your hopes up.
- Are there not a large number of Class B addresses (and Class C
addresses, but maybe those have all been filtered out by now)
that were assigned before the registries were established, and
thus not aggregatable under the registry allocation prefixes?
- Why are we talking about this? Yes, you could adopt the same
or a similar address allocation/aggregation policy in IPv4 as
has been specified for IPv6, if you were starting all over again
with IPv4. But so what?
Steve