RE: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing is at odds with reality

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

Hi Robin,


|If your position is that a scalable routing and addressing solution
|based on geographic aggregation of address space can only be widely
|adopted if most or all adoptors (or at least most or all initial
|adoptors) do so out of altruism, then I would say this sort of
|solution is a non-starter.


No Robin.  My point was an academic one: if it was possible to get some
degree of multi-lateral cooperation from providers, then geo-aggregation at
a very coarse level with relaxed rules is _technically_ feasible.  This has
been under consideration since we first introduced CIDR and it got ejected
even then, when there were far more providers in the room.

Moreover, it's not pure altruism: it's a coalition or co-operative
agreement.  Altruism would be pure sacrafice for no return.  This clearly
has a return, it's just not tightly coupled to the investment.

Note that this same type of mechanism is also going to be necessary to deal
with some of the non-architectural deaggregation that's seen today with
traffic engineering generated more specifics.

Now, it's been a very long time since the I*TF had the kind of critical mass
of operators necessary to begin that type of agreement, and it's been even
longer since we've seen folks that had the kind of vision to collaborate for
the long term good.  More's the pity.

That said, I'm actually welcome to see geo-aggregation discussed.  It's
certainly part of the technical solution space and if someone, as part of
the conversation, has a brilliant mechanism for driving such cooperation,
then it's all worthwhile.  While we're at it, we can also toss in creating a
market for routing slots.  Same set of issues.

Tony


--
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