Heiner, Iljitsch and Tony, It seems you support or are prepared to seriously consider a solution to the scalable routing problem in the form of a clean-slate approach which requires some, most or all addresses to be assigned according to the geographical location of the provider or end-user network.
Bill and I have argued that this is not worth discussing seriously because we believe the resulting arrangement would be far too much much at odds with the business (security, policy ...) needs of providers and end-user networks. Tony admitted that organisations adopting geo-aggregation (I assume of a kind which would somehow solve the routing scaling problem) would need to be motivated other than by the immediate benefits they would achieve. http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01855.html What criteria of compatibility with existing human nature and business practices do you have in mind when considering the practicality of a proposal for solving the routing scaling problem? Do you think a proposal should still be taken seriously by other people if it can be shown to be at odds with current and likely future organisational needs? If we could change humanity so as to make the needs and behaviour of organisations accord with the current or future architecture of the Internet, then we could no-doubt solve the problem much more simply than by introducing a new addressing scheme and new routers etc. Just upgrade the necessary subset of humanity so that those who run end-user networks (and who use them and pay for them) are happy about not having portable, multihomable space. Then the demand for PI space would diminish and the problem would be solved. LISP, APT, Ivip, TRRP and I think Six-One Router are all intended to work with the current version of humanity. For any proposal, there must be some level of requisite upgrades to humanity and organisational behaviour at which you consider the proposal to be unworkable. I think geo-aggregation for the purpose of solving the routing scaling problem is far over that line. If you think the changes in organisational behaviour your proposals require are not over that line, perhaps you could state some greater degree of requisite change beyond which you would agree that a proposal was unworkable and not worth discussing seriously. - 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
