[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Geographical aggregation, was: Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification
On 2 mei 2008, at 18:43, Tony Li wrote:
|Should the geographically aggregatable address be out of the
|consideration?
No, geographically aggregatable addresses are not out of
consideration.
However, to seriously propose them, one should also include
solutions to the well known issues with geographic aggregation. At
the very least, these include the resulting common interconnect
within the geographic area and the effective mandate of the topology.
Let me take this opportunity to direct a small part of the rg's
collective attention to a draft I wrote a while ago (ugh, has it been
this long?):
http://ipv4.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-01.txt
The idea is that address space is given out geographically so that
each AS can aggregate based on geography _internally_. Interconnection
still happens the same as today, i.e., everyone announces their
prefixes to peers at all interconnection locations, but those
announcements are ignored outside of the target area. This has the
nice property that everyone can draw the aggregation boundaries where
they want so there is no need to interconnect in all locations. When
interconnection still happens outside the privately defined target
area, ASes can break aggregation for the prefixes in question so there
is a tradeoff between smaller routing tables and fewer interconnect
locations.
--
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