On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The solution is rather than to impose 100% geographical aggregation, just > apply the aggregation when the more specific and the aggregate align. If > they don't, keep the more specific. This way, we get to benefit from the > regionality that is clearly present in the network, especially outside huge > countries like the US and (presumably) China, while at the same time not > imposing any new requirements on protocols or business models. > > However, we DO need to start giving out addresses in a geographically > aggregatable way, rather than in pseudo-random fashion, the way things > happen today. There is no guarantee this will help, but at least there is > the possibility of future geographic aggregation, while if this doesn't > materialize we're no worse of than today. The way things are now we KNOW > there is no way to aggregate PI prefixes.
Iljitsch , You more or less re-propose provider-aggregatable addressing with geographic registries, an approach which has been in place for better than a decade now and has already achieved the close to the maximum aggregation it can. I personally think there's still a little room for improvement in the FIB calculation. It might be possible to reduce the FIB by selecting the most-common exit in the RIB for each /8 and then only installing the more specifics in the FIB for the prefixes that use a different exit. But the closer you get to the core, the less improvement that offers, something you should be able to confirm or refute with RIB snapshots from various operators if you care to try it. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
