Scott Bradner wrote: >>better to have your own globally-unique, provider-independent >>prefix (perhaps assigned by a registry) > > > I do not see how this could work without blowing up the routing tables > > (CIDR 101)
V4 address allocation systems today are based on registries, and provide CIDR (albeit in some cases poorly). This aggregation is basically because short prefixes are managed in blocks.
The idea of Globally Unique Provider independent is a good idea, if it can be made workable. GUPI doesn't have to be routable.
The ideal goal for many is to have Globally Routable Unique Provider Independent.
Tony Hain currently has an interesting idea about providing uniqueness based on geography (not the first time this has been attempted either). Tony's idea is geographically aggregatable, and may provide a base routable model in some cases.
Of course, geographic systems need to be worked out to determine how routes are advertised outside the domain, but there is a potential that similarly located addresses could be used to provide aggregatable blocks. These address blocks could be used in Internet communication, and allocated based on land occupancy, or (apartment block/city/jurisdictional) regional cooperation.
Greg D.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
