[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

To: "Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>
Subject: Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 21:03:21 -0500
Cc: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>,"J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>, <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <D2EC481073504E498A8DB9C0687E8CAF067D312E@EXCHANGE0-0.na.procket.com>

On Thursday, Apr 3, 2003, at 15:17 Canada/Eastern, Tony Li wrote:

Yes, geo addressing at the continental level makes much more sense
because the connectivity within a continent is pretty much a
given.

Connectivity within a continent may be a given for all continents at some point in the future. Today it's only really a given for North America, Australasia and Europe.

Joe

Follow-Ups:
- Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
  - From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>

References:
- RE: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
  - From: "Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>

Prev by Date: RE: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
Next by Date: Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
Previous by thread: RE: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
Next by thread: Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread