Re: regionalized addresses, RIRs, and table size

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> IMHO - The concept of geographic based, or regionalized addresses
> recently mentioned seems to merit some review in light of recent
> other discussions.
>
> Possible positive impacts of geographic based IPv6 addresses are:
>
> * Ability to have smaller allocations within a region without
>    bloating the global rout table.
>
> * It compliments regional peering.
>
> * It tends to aggregate globally.
>
> Negative
>
> * Impact of networks without extra regional topologies

You forgot "does not fit current topology". This has been discussed
here before. I still think this is a larger problem that people assume.

> All the multi-homed proposals seem a lot more of a problem
> than geographic based address allocation. Why not apply
> the analog of Occam's Razor to this problem. If geographic
> allocations provide the simple solution, why not reevaluate?

There is more to aggregation than just routing table growth. Currently
this is also to a large extent the expression of a providers' routing
policy. This is normally an expression of their business plan.

There are enough Tier-1/Providers with worldwide coverage in here - 
opinions?


There is more to this than meets the eye.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP4sDBaarNKXTPFCVEQKS9gCePoGJzYfZfdyJgqvi6SrSo3b54JAAoOUb
ozjJRWqeG2Sg0s2fZ4tBFsTy
=8oc/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----