Re: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:43:56 +0100 (CET) From <rogerj@jorgensen.no> To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?
<snip>
so what sort of consensus are we aiming for...? A new policy for AS, a net block, routing policy, multihoming, or just IPv6 in general? ...quite a lot of topics have been discussed ... but what are our goal with all this?
Get rid of the current hierarchy which requires ISP in order to connect to the network. The Internet is an aggregation of interconnected networks. We want to replicate what the Mother Nature has already given us, i.e. a brain like structure where neurons (individual networks) have multiple direct connections with each other. As brain cells networks should have about the same size. Network prefix determines the size. Peter Sherbin Bell Canada
Hi, On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:08:47AM -0500, peter.sherbin@bell.ca wrote:
Get rid of the current hierarchy which requires ISP in order to connect to the network. The Internet is an aggregation of interconnected networks. We want to replicate what the Mother Nature has already given us, i.e. a brain like structure where neurons (individual networks) have multiple direct connections with each other. As brain cells networks should have about the same size. Network prefix determines the size.
Ah, back to the source-route-bridged times of (ring-) explorer packets... Sounds like a nice idea, would even be much more resilient than the current structure. Any IETF proposals where we can read up on how this is gonna work? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
participants (2)
-
Gert Doering -
peter.sherbin＠bell.ca