RE: Geo pros and cons

[marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Tony,

[...]
> As we concluded many years ago: for addressing to scale, it has
> to match the topology.

Fully agree.
I would say that the question is if topology matches geography or not.

I have heard many claims that the Internet is becoming a dense
interconnection mesh. If this is true, it should be easy to determine
geographical areas that are interconnected, so geo aggregation works
without the need of more specific routes.

I think that this is certainly not the case for all geo locations, but i
would say that it is probably the case for some locations as big cities
where a lot of users reside. Wouldn't geo addressing be suitable for
this situations?

I am not aware of any analysis of how dense is the interconnection in
geo areas, but i would say that this input is important when considering
geo addressing. Does anyone have information about this?

Thanks, marcelo


>   If addressing does not match the topology,
> then additional information in the form of longer prefixes must be
> advertised into the routing subsystem.  Ergo, if one chooses geographic
> address, one must force only geographically based links.  Anything
> else destroys the aggregatability of the address assignment.  Since
> we, as IETF members, cannot decree where folks will connect, geo 
> addressing is a nice theorectical goal which is unimplementable.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
-- 
marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
uc3m