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

[George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:27:43 -0700 "Christian Huitema"
<huitema@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:


>  
> By the way, these non technical reasons apply also to various "virtual
> addressing" schemes that propose to use a provider independent overlay on top
> of a provider addressed network. Any kind of virtual aggregation is much more
> likely to be centered on business relations than on geography.

Christian, as a confessed partisan supporter of some aspects of geographic
addressing I think I can argue that virtual aggregation by layered/overlay
networks is *neutral* for both business relations-based networking and
geographic address assignment models.

Can you be more explicit why overlay models favour one schema for address
deployment more than another? 

The AP region has sub-registries under the regional registry which do, in
practice hand out resource along economic/national boundaries. I do not think we
should be arguing that *no* national/geo takes place, it clearly does. Maybe we
should be asking more direct questions about the impact and effects. Layer-9
stuff reaching down into layer-3 and 2?

There might be valid issues/concerns in the effects it has on connectivity and
vice-versa, and equally valid observations to be made about the net effects on
routing table complexity.

I am probably over-optimistic about the benefits. But can I suggest that some of
the opponents are equally over pessimistic?

cheers
	-George

-- 
George Michaelson       |  APNIC
Email: ggm@apnic.net    |  PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064
Phone: +61 7 3367 0490  |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3367 0482  |  http://www.apnic.net