Hi Heiner,
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. I have never ever thought of such a crazy idea - to have geographically based exchange points. I think there is no controversal: IP addresses shall get an aditional attribute. Many years ago it was the mask. Now in LISP it is an ETR's IP address, in ILNP an AS# (I think), in TARA it would be 2 octets square-degree-index, 12 bits square-degree minute-index, 6 bits adjusted longitude-second, 6 bits adjusted latitude-second = 5 octets altogether.
How does routing work entering and within the geo-patch? Traffic arriving into the geo-patch must be routed to one of possibly many local ISPs from one of possibly many long-haul transit ISPs. For this to work, there must be some interconnect between local and long-haul. This implies that there must be an exchange point, and that it needs to be geo-patch specific.
And my point is that EIDs shouldn't have to be aggregated at all, neither now nor ever in the future.
Please read Joel's posting again. At the very least, ANY large name space needs to be managed, and that management needs to be hierarchical to scale.
Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
