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

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

On woensdag, apr 16, 2003, at 06:08 Europe/Amsterdam, Sean Doran wrote:

> > 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.
> No, this is not true, unless you insist a multihomer only ever uses 
> one address
> to fit a constrained L2 topology.
You really have been in hibernation, haven't you?

Constrained L4 architecture, anyone? Multiaddressing needs a huge 
amount of work before it can catch up with the level of functionality 
provided by today's routing-based approaches. That's why we're still 
discussing the routing stuff, even though we know it has inherent 
scalability problems.

> > 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.
[...]

> > Maybe the savings aren't that big.
> The savings are enormous.  Aggregating the entire western hemisphere 
> behind
> a single prefix would be wonderful.  (I propose using existing Sprint 
> address space.)
Ok, here you cross the line between being purposefully ignorant and 
being offensive. I think your comments here disqualify you as chair of 
this wg, and I am asking you here and now to step back and let someone 
else, who can take all of this seriously, take over.

> However you are overlooking the fact that there are costs too (on top 
> of the
> monopoly rent I will gladly extract from hundreds of millions of 
> people like you, who will deliver all your North American traffic only 
> to me).
Ha ha. Is this the way the IETF is supposed to work? People volunteer 
many hours of work only to be mocked? Didn't you even read the *title* 
of my draft?

        "Provider-_I_n_t_e_r_n_a_l_ Aggregation based on Geography
                     to Support Multihoming in IPv6"

> Massive spending on local redundancy and resiliency is the correct 
> answer.
> The industry's approach -- connecting to more than one provider -- is 
> fundamentally a bad idea.
So you agree you have no business chairing a _multihoming_ in IPv6 wg?

Two final quotes for those of you still reading:

> My approach is even easier.  "No, you can't have an address, unless 
> you get it from Sprint".
> Try working on SAPI: "Sean-Assigned Public Internet addresses".    
> That'd be much cooler.
Iljitsch van Beijnum