Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On donderdag, apr 3, 2003, at 15:34 Europe/Amsterdam, J. Noel Chiappa 
wrote:

>  i) for the overhead of the routing to scale, the hierarchy of 
> addressing
> abstractions has to be reasonably closely related to the actual
> interconnection topology;
> - ii) this means that either connectivity has to follow addressing, or
> addressing has to follow connectivity;
> - iii) the IETF cannot mandate where connectivity gets added;
> - iv) connectivity gets put in where there are actual traffic flows 
> and/or
> commercial reasons to put it in.
> Therefore we have to have the addressing follow the connectivity, and 
> an
> addressing scheme such as geographic, which to scale needs to have the
> connectivity follow the addressing, is not feasible.
But does a addressing scheme that follows connectivity AND allows 
multihoming to a usable degree exist?

If yes, now would be a good time to unveil it.

If no, we need to select the addressing scheme that is slowest to fail 
scaling.