Re: [RRG] Topology that follows addressing

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

On 22 nov 2007, at 13:46, Ricardo V. Oliveira wrote:

> Sorry for jumping in the middle of the thread

Why would you be sorry about that?

> > I understand this to be geographic routing, which goes even further  
> > than the geographic aggregation that is pretty much rejected out of  
> > hand whenever it comes up within the IETF (which is every couple of  
> > years or so).

> Not sure what "geographic aggregation" you're referring to

Simple: 1. encode geography into addresses, 2. aggregate. See

http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-01.txt

> but here is one that seems to work and avoids the pitfalls you  
> mentioned bellow:
> http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/giro.pdf

> Comments are appreciated.

Ok:

- using imperial measurements in a research paper, is that allowed??

- as is remarked at the end of the paper, you don't need to encode  
geography into the address for BGP decision making

- now that AS numbers are 32 bits, something like this would probably  
use too much address space

- you're not aggregating on geography, but on AS. As such, a 1:4  
reduction is quite poor because the number of prefixes per AS is  
upwards of 1:8

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg