I am replying to Brian and Ricardo. Hi Brian,
Let me rephrase this: >> Geographical aggregation is the sort of thing which looks good on >> paper, but will never be acceptable in the real world. > > In any case, it isn't forbidden, and never has been. There's > absolutely nothing to stop the ISPs in Klingonville grouping > together to set up a local IXP, which gets a short prefix from > the RIR, and then uses it as a metro area prefix for all > local customers, with whatever policies and configurations > are needed in the IXP-connected routers. The above sentence, when properly interpreted in the context of the rest of my message, means: Ideas to achieve a scalable routing and addressing system by re-engineering the routing system to work scalably with addresses which are assigned according to the restrictions of "geographical aggregation" is the sort of thing which looks good on paper, but will never be acceptable in the real world. This is my opinion, of course. I am stating it as if it is a fact because I am sure it is true. I am frustrated at the way geo-aggregation keeps emerging in this discussion, which I believe should concern proposals which have the potential to be compatible with business, security and policy reality. Hi Ricardo, How could a scalable routing system which depends upon geographical aggregation achieve its goals if there are also connections and address usage which does not respect whatever geographical rules are set to support this architecture? I imagine some new architecture could "improve" scalability, such as perhaps: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/giro.pdf However, if you only have 50% of the Net using the rules, then the scalability improvements won't apply to 50% of the packets, 50% of the addresses, routes or whatever. I am not sure that it would ever be adopted by 50% of providers and end-user networks anyway. What would be the benefits for early adoptors of a new architecture which restricts their addressing and routing systems in this way? But even if the new routing technologies and the new geographic restrictions on what IP address a network could have were adopted by 50% of networks, I don't see how this would solve the routing scaling problem. Cutting the problem in half wouldn't be good enough. We need some factor of 10 or more (ideally hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands) scaling improvement to cope with the desired growth in end-user networks with their own portable, multihomable, address space. This growth is desired and required by the end-user networks themselves. How do you counter my specific critiques that geo-aggregation's requirements on addressing and paths taken by packets are at odds with business, policy and security requirements? - Robin -- 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
