Re: [RRG] RE: Abstraction action boundary & geo-aggregation router behavior

[Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>]

focus on continental level aggregation, as I don't believe that fine-grained geographic addressing buys you much at all.

Apparently the trick is to balance the geo aggregation with interests of profit conscious providers. One can think of a (very) granular geo aggregation where specific prefixes PA to providers currently active in a given geography. Whatever happens to a provider, aggregation does not change because prefixes assigned to a fixed geo area?

Thanks,

Peter

--- On Tue, 7/22/08, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:

> From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
> Subject: [RRG] RE: Abstraction action boundary & geo-aggregation router behavior
> To: "'Robin Whittle'" <rw@firstpr.com.au>, "'Routing Research Group'" <rrg@psg.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 4:53 AM
> Hi Robin, 
> 
> |If this was a maths class, I would be sure that this
> Friday's test
> |would include questions on "abstraction action
> boundary" and
> |"abstraction naming boundary"!
> 
> 
> ;-)  Indeed.  Those are Noel-ism's as you've found
> out, and they're
> absolutely necessary to talk about aggregation in a
> meaningful way.
> 
> 
> |Perhaps you could give a more concrete example of how you
> envisage
> |routers behaving in a geographic address aggregation
> setting - in
> |particular by explaining what you mean by
> "abstraction action
> |boundary" and by giving some examples of the
> geographical limits and
> |addressing arrangements of a "geo-patch". 
> Diagrams would really
> |help me.
> 
> 
> Sure.  Again, let me focus on continental level
> aggregation, as I don't
> believe that fine-grained geographic addressing buys you
> much at all.
> 
> Let me continue the previously suggested example where
> Canada is assigned a
> prefix.  For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that
> it's assigned a /8.
> Now, let's say that we will use this prefix as the
> abstraction and that the
> naming boundary will be the political boundaries of Canada.
>  Any site within
> that region is welcome to request a prefix (subject to the
> usual rules) from
> that block.
> 
> We can now place the abstraction action boundary remotely. 
> Let's say it's
> at the geographical edge of North America.  Thus, longer
> prefixes for this
> block would extend throughout the continental USA and
> Mexico.  However, more
> specifics wouldn't leave the continental shelf.  
> 
> The benefit here is that routing table space is preserved
> outside of the
> action boundary, while within the action boundary, traffic
> engineering is
> preserved.
> 
> Note that unlike small scale geographic addressing, there
> is no central
> traffic exchange required.  Folks are still permitted to
> extend more
> specifics outside of the naming boundary so that the entry
> points can still
> be carefully directed when at a distance from the
> abstraction that makes
> sense.
> 
> 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


      

--
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