On 17-apr-2006, at 21:20, Tony Hain wrote:
I have been advocating a
particular geo approach that can work with existing BGP and be
scaled up and
down as far as necessary to contain the routes. Unfortunately to
date, the
IESG has not understood the necessity to have a working group to
refine a
globally acceptable approach.
Since this has been coming up from time to time for over a decade,
why not look at it, document the results and be done much faster when
it comes up again and again the following decade, I would think.
But I also happen to think that aggregation inside ISP networks based
on geography (which has little to do with "metro addressing" as
proposed but never worked out in detail 10 years ago) can actually
work. Unfotunately when it was time to decide on an approach to
further develop in multi6 there was no support for this so shim6
happened (which is also a good approach in its own right) but now the
operator / policy making community balks at shim6...
Anyway, here's the draft once again for those looking for some
reading material:
http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-01.txt
But it's really a no-brainer: with "straight" PI we know that smarter
routing is never going to help us for those prefixes. But if PI
addresses are given out in _some_ aggregatable we at least have a
chance that we can clean up the routing tables later. Geography makes
sense to aggregate on as a next best thing when provider aggregation
can't be used because it optimizes for one of the few network
properties that are more or less constant: the speed of light.
(With apologies to Brian for not having run my 100M BGP table
simulations.)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf