RE: Regionally aggregatable address space for multihoming

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tony Hain wrote:

> This proposal is not attempting to provide the optimal 'one and only'
> solution to addressing in the global Internet, and I specifically don't care
> about waste since I know off the top that ~ 2/3 is unusable. What it is
> trying to do is provide a specific tool for addressing the impact on routing
> by multi-homed sites. It does not require renumbering as devices move,
> unless the public demarcation at layer 1 changes as a result. It may not map
> well with current topologies, though I would like to have some operators
> show specifically where it breaks down.

Ok, lets not dwell on the wasted address space or incidental renumbering. The
most important problem is the bad fit with existing topologies. What we
really need to eveluate this is a map with all the prefixes drawn in. In the
mean time, I believe there WILL be problems, the only question is how big
they'll be.

Since it is impossible to route strictly on geography alone (even if this
were a possibility, then there would only be one route so this would defeat
the purpose of being multihomed), my question is: why use such a strict
relationship between prefix and geography?