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

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

On zondag, apr 6, 2003, at 05:00 Europe/Amsterdam, Randy Bush wrote:

> > 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.
> if you don't count the oceanic island nations, se asia, ...  all of
> which backhaul a long way.  net topology is extremely different
> from geography.  this repeating idea of geographic aggregation
> simply ignores reality.
Trying to get something right that was done wrong in the past isn't 
"repeating".

The idea behind geographic addressing is not that the topology and 
addressing become interchangable. The simple fact that a multihomer 
connects to the net in two places makes this impossible by definition.

The point is that it becomes possible to draw lines on the map in such 
a way that aggregating routing information that crosses these lines 
gets rid of enough routing information that the savings in routing 
table size are worth the effort.

For this purpose, it is irrelevant that the aggregation circle with 
Singapore in the middle may also include Palo Alto and LA. That still 
gets rid of Asia/Pacific more specifics in most of the US and the rest 
of the world. And even if some Asian networks connect to other places, 
this only breaks aggregation for these specific networks.

Maybe the savings aren't that big. But then again, the effort isn't all 
that huge either: the RIRs need to implement a tool that allows local 
internet registries (ISPs) to give out geography-based /48s to 
multihomers. That's all.

(Aside: I'm not that familiar with the Asia/Pacific region, but I 
believe the interconnection within many countries isn't all that bad, 
it's the interconnection between countries in the region that's still 
in the early stages. So aggregating at the continent level wouldn't 
work well there, but aggregating on the country level could.)