[lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261

>>> So, what we really want is PI addresses. And with the current 
>>> pratices they
>>> just do not aggregate which also is a bad thing. This is why I think 
>>> the
>>> geographical approach already mentioned on the list (one netblock per
>>> country, different sizes depending on population) currently is the 
>>> approach
>>> which fits that need best, I believe.
>>
>> How do you come to that conclusion? Every other PI space will be with
>> another ISP. So even thought you might have everything close together
>> on a "human logic" level there is no way to aggregate the prefixes
>> together in the routing system. Unless of course you want to do it
>> PTT style where one is the one who routes this block.
>
> I think in most cases the "human logic level" also works for routing. 
> So
> I guess many people will carry the complete routingtable for those 
> countries
> they communicate a lot with (mostly this will be the own country and 
> some
> nearby, but YMMV) and just have a few aggregates like "send all 
> traffic to
> $farcountry1 to uplink A, send all for $farcountry2 via uplink B etc".

...and if you are a "Tier-1" operator that is also selling services all 
across the globe and use one single AS-number, you will end up having 
to carry all those routes anyway....and guess what, the "Tier-1"s are 
coming to the conclusion that routes equals state equals costs. Cost 
need to be recovered. I think you can work out the rest.

> I think this could be a good compromise between every multihomed user 
> has to
> be in every routing table and ongoing provider dependance.
>

It's a good idea, but the world doesn't really look that way.

- kurtis -
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 174 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/lir-wg/attachments/20030601/88b165ea/attachment.sig>