Re: shim6 @ NANOG

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum (no email)
Date: Mon Mar 06 2006 - 06:46:51 EST

  • Next message: william(at)elan.net: "Re: Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG)"

    On 6-mrt-2006, at 3:52, Roland Dobbins wrote:

    > fixed geographic allocations (another nonstarter for reasons which
    > have been elucidated previously)

    What I hear is "any type of geography can't work because network
    topology != geography". That's like saying cars can't work because
    they can't drive over water which covers 70% of the earth's surface.

    Early proposals for doing any geographic stuff were fatally flawed
    but there is enough correlation between geography and topology to
    allow for useful savings. Even if it's only at the continent level
    that would allow for about an 80% reduction of routing tables in the
    future when other continents reach the same level of multihoming as
    North America and Europe.


  • Next message: william(at)elan.net: "Re: Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD