RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 25, 2002, at 03:18 America/Montreal, Iljitsch van 
> Beijnum wrote:
> > In the real there are interconnection points within 2000 km 
> or so from 
> > well-connected locations for good reasons: it helps 
> robustness, keeps 
> > speed of light delays in check and it's usually cheaper. So why not 
> > optimize for this, at least in the absense of something 
> that is better 
> > in al regards?
> 
> That is not universal reality with North American networks at 
> least. 

So expand the scope of the statement to 3000 km, and it holds for the
densely populated parts of North America.

> I also have found it not to be the case with some 
> commercial networks in Europe and Asia/Pacific.

We can always find a exception, the question is can we find an approach
that minimizes the number and impact of those exceptions? If we insist
on finding the grand solution that will work for all cases, we will
never do anything.

> 
> My main objection to so-called "geographic addressing" is that it is 
> often
> not congruent with the actual network topology.

Over an arbitrary scope, you are correct. If we take a large enough
scope, it becomes less clear. After all, there are only so many physical
fiber runs under the oceans, and the places where they terminate is an
even smaller number. Granted the logical circuit topology is not limited
to that, but again, how many real exceptions will exist, and how many of
those will exist despite every attempt to prevent them? 

I content that particularly in the case where someone has gone to the
expense to pull a direct circuit out of their region, they will insist
on and get flat routing in the remote region. The question is can we
abstract that away in other regions? 

Tony


> 
> Ran
> 
>