Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "RJ" == RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com> writes:
    RJ> On Monday, Oct 21, 2002, at 17:24 America/Montreal, Iljitsch van
    RJ> Beijnum wrote:
    >> 4. Work on geographical aggregation, especially by getting an address
    >> allocation mechanism that supports this off the ground.

    RJ> At best, a different term needs to be found other than "geographical
    RJ> aggregation".  At worst, this is a bad idea.

    RJ> The problem is that just because I am in city X, that still does not
    RJ> mean that any of the ISPs that I connect to will interconnect inside
    RJ> X.  In all cases so far, I am on a tail circuit that goes to a

  Perhaps this is a problem!
  1) Maybe we can never solve the aggregation problem until we change this
     statement.

    RJ> In short, the IP routing topology is NOT closely congruent with the
    RJ> world's geographical topology.  If we assign addresses not congruent

  2) maybe geographical based addresses are always tunnelled. They are
     not intended to be efficiently routed, just efficiently aggregated.

  So, Ran, you are perfectly correct that geographical addresses are useless
in an IPv4 model of multihoming.  

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBPbbMIIqHRg3pndX9AQH2NgQAjZxqwBGmieBXDxVPAxSpN/id8pTHo7po
toLVDBvYiO8bE3EZ3/q6Is/OSzLEPS5SoZToitmY12TddZrtQ3P8du8CCUngpTFw
KLmlkaYb2dbWcPRFbcgyFD4baTFo/WrawtAG1wzULeZgfxqEFRe0syBvn2jyKvZ6
15ZZNqzmbIE=
=V1Y2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----