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

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Thanks Tony no response other than your mail was key input to my
processes to think about this.  I agree about Antartica too :--)
Thank You,
/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:18 PM
>To: Bound, Jim; J. Noel Chiappa; multi6@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
>
>
>
>
>
>Jim,
>
>Yes, geo addressing at the continental level makes much more 
>sense because the connectivity within a continent is pretty much a 
>given.  Not so at the metro or lower layers, so it doesn't 
>recurse down nicely.
>
>Note that a hybrid system that was geo at the top and provider 
>based below was proposed some 10 years ago, but some folks 
>shouted it down because they didn't feel that the aggregation 
>at the continental level would have a great effect.  Of 
>course, we had very few ISPs at that exact point in time and 
>they were correct.  For the moment.
>
>I would have zero issues with continental aggregation tied
>to lower layers that were topological.  [Well, ok, I don't 
>think that Antartica should get as much as China, but that's a 
>nit. ;-) ]
>
>Tony
>
>
>|    -----Original Message-----
>|    From: Bound, Jim [mailto:Jim.Bound@hp.com] 
>|    Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:05 AM
>|    To: J. Noel Chiappa; multi6@ops.ietf.org
>|    Subject: RE: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
>|    
>|    
>|    This is logical and makes sense.
>|    
>|    But practically, if say the U.S., Mexico, and Canada all 
>|    had a toplevel
>|    GEO prefix would the connectivity issue still be real or just
>|    theoretical?
>|    
>|    Within this GEO if all had 2ffe then another set of bits 
>|    for Mexico,
>|    U.S. and Canada how would that exacerbate routing problems 
>|    in Austrailia
>|    or France?
>|    
>|    Thanks
>|    /jim
>|    
>|     
>|    
>|    
>|    > -----Original Message-----
>|    > From: J. Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu] 
>|    > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:35 AM
>|    > To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
>|    > Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu
>|    > Subject: Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
>|    > 
>|    > 
>|    >     > From: "Michael H. Lambert" <lambert@psc.edu>
>|    > 
>|    >     >> Geographic addressing has been discussed extensively 
>|    > about 17 times in
>|    >     >> the IETF, and every time it has been rejected. 
>|    > Discussing it one more
>|    >     >> time is not going to change this. There is *never* 
>|    > going to be a rough
>|    >     >> consensus *in favour of* geographic addressing. There 
>|    > will *always* be
>|    >     >> a lot of people against it
>|    > 
>|    >     > Since you have more historical context than many of us 
>|    > on the list,
>|    >     > could you please summarize the arguments which have 
>|    > been used against
>|    >     > geo? I suspect that they are mainly financial and 
>|    > political, but there
>|    >     > might be technical issues I'm unaware of.
>|    > 
>|    > Actually, I don't think that's quite correct: the argument 
>|    > against it is in fact rooted in technical issues, although 
>|    > there are non-technical issues in the later stages.
>|    > 
>|    > The analysis of geographic has been fairly well summarized in 
>|    > recent discussion here on the list, but very simply, it goes:
>|    > 
>|    > - 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.
>|    > 
>|    > 	Noel
>|    > 
>|    > 
>|    > PS: Everyone, about the "this is stupid" comment - that 
>|    > wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but at all of us, me 
>|    > included. I suddenly had my brain start to function, and 
>|    > realized that there is never going to be *rough consensus in 
>|    > favour of geographic* - which is what we'd need to go forward 
>|    > with it - and therefore further discussion thereof is not 
>|    > useful. I hope I didn't offend anyone - if I did, my apologies.
>|    > 
>|    >
>|    
>|    
>