[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 23-feb-05, at 14:14, Gert Doering wrote:
> >> 1) Which parts of the community rejected the doc in its previous
> >>    incarnation and why?
> 
> > It was mostly disliked because of the use of a global common address
> > pool, which means that you give up any chance to be able to 
> > filter/aggregate
> > on region boundaries ("why do I need to know any details about ASes
> > located outside my region?") - whether or not someone is doing this 
> > today
> > doesn't matter, but it was felt that it shouldn't be made impossible
> > right from the start.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to object here.
> 
> The notion that divvying up the globe into four or five parts in order 
> to save on routing table expenditures in nonsense. Either filtering out 
> "far away" information is a good idea, and then we should do it right, 
> or it isn't, and then we don't need to do it at all.
> 
> By doing it right I mean putting several layers of geographical 
> hierarchy into addresses. In Europe, this would mean at least the 
> country level, in large countries like the US, China and India the 
> state/province level.

Geo-addressing, I think it would be a great idea!
next step would be geographical based routing... even better.


-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              |
rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no        | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
-------------------------------------------------------