On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-feb-05, at 14:14, Gert Doering wrote:
1) Which parts of the community rejected the doc in its previous incarnation and why?
It was mostly disliked because of the use of a global common address pool, which means that you give up any chance to be able to filter/aggregate on region boundaries ("why do I need to know any details about ASes located outside my region?") - whether or not someone is doing this today doesn't matter, but it was felt that it shouldn't be made impossible right from the start.
I'm sorry, but I have to object here.
The notion that divvying up the globe into four or five parts in order to save on routing table expenditures in nonsense. Either filtering out "far away" information is a good idea, and then we should do it right, or it isn't, and then we don't need to do it at all.
By doing it right I mean putting several layers of geographical hierarchy into addresses. In Europe, this would mean at least the country level, in large countries like the US, China and India the state/province level.
Geo-addressing, I think it would be a great idea! next step would be geographical based routing... even better. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------