On Jan 14, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Ah, no.
Everyone who keeps going on about embedding geographic information
into the
names used by the path-selection is missing something really critical:
***Two computers which are _across the street from each other_, in
geographic
terms, may be (and often, are) _many hops apart_, in network terms -
because
they are connected to different ISPs whose geographically nearest
point of
connection is a long way away (e.g. in another city).***
Geographic information about two computers tells you _nothing_ about
how close
they are to each other, in terms of the path through the network
between them.
That is why the names used in path selection have to be based on,
and embody,
only the _actual network connectivity_.
Now, can we stop being hearing this ridiculous nonsense about
embedding
geographic information in the names used by path-selection?
Noel
sorry for this belated reply: Noel, looks like you missed part of the
picture being discussed here.
I fully agree with your comment if you talk about solely geo based
addressing.
But if you look at the msg subject: it is about coding the ISP/AS# as
*first* part of the address, and having geo info only *after* that. In
this case the above comment does not seem applicable.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
