RE: Geo pros and cons

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Marcelo,

Yes, there are regions where geo addressing makes sense.  Here
in the SF bay area, where it's hard not to trip over all of 
the fiber that we have lying around, it would play out
beautifully.  Theoretically.  

However, even in this location, where we have multiple 
interconnect points, we can observe that the local ISPs do
not choose to connect at all of the interconnects.  Some
are at Fix-W, some at Equinix, some at PAIX, etc....  Even
in this environment we are not yet at the point where geo
addressing would not require us to force particular links to
be installed.

I dunno about you, but I don't like pushing string.

Tony


|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: marcelo bagnulo [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] 
|    Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 7:14 AM
|    To: Tony Li
|    Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; multi6@ops.ietf.org
|    Subject: RE: Geo pros and cons
|    
|    
|    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
|    
|