On 31-mrt-05, at 16:20, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
If I've understood correctly, geographical addressing will lead to forced interconnection of providers in the geographical area
This is a common misconception. Unfortunately, many people have assumptions about geography in routing based on mailing list discussions.
We have enough knowledge of intercontinental cable routes today in order to design a geographical aggregation topology. There are unlikely to be any significantly new intercontinental or overland paths that could not be predicted based on today's knowledge. It would make an interesting university research project to design such an addressing topology and I hope that someone will take up the challenge. Until we have this kind of work on the table to discuss, it is hard to prove that geographic addressing will work or that it won't work.
I put a lot of effort into geographic addressing. Some of you may even remember that I talked about this at RIPE 44 and RIPE 46: once for the IPv6 wg, which was slightly perplexed, and then for the routing wg where I don't think anyone got it. It's a significant departure from business as usual, I'm afraid... Have a look at: http://www.bgpexpert.com/presentations/ http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-01.txt The interesting part here is that each AS gets to implement geographical aggregation completely independent from every other AS. This includes NOT aggregating, which means that there is absolutely NO difference between simply doing PI and following my proposal for anyone who chooses to carry all routes everywhere (except that the address space for multihomers must be allocated according to geography). There are no changes to BGP. The idea is that everyone announces their geographical customer routes everywhere, but people filter out the geographically undesirable routing information _within_ _their_ _own_ _AS_. So there is no dependency on free transit, and only a limited dependency on interconnection. When there is lack of interconnection in an area, this doesn't lead to lack of reachability, just to lack of aggregation. In the common case where a multihomer connects to two ISPs in the same area and both ISPs are well-connected in the area, there is potential for aggregation. In places where there are so many multihomers that the amount of routing information becomes problematic, there is bound to be reasonable interconnection, especially when looking at the continent or part-of-a-continent scale.