RE: (multi6) requirements draft comments

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> Some of you may hear echoes of metro addressing in this, but
> there is a
> crucial difference. In metro-addressing, routing-names are
> assigned, and then
> the topology is constrained to meet certain properties. In
> this system, it's
> the other way around: if you sign up for a different set of
> providers, you
> have to get a new routing-name.

So there is a prefix for every combination of possible providers a
customer can subscribe from, but how would that scale globally? The fact
that I can't get service from Telstra doesn't mean that someone in
another area of attbi / verizon coverage would not be able to. How would
the providers know where the overlaps are to route correctly, unless
their competitors exposed plans to offer service in an area before it
happened? How would routing work if those overlap areas were
discontiguous? This approach moves the scaling problem from the
technical space to the administrative space, where the complexity would
create prohibitive costs.

Tony