Thrills. The author of the PDF re-winds us all the way back to when IPV6 was named "SIP", and Steve Deering was talking about exactly what is covered in the PDF.
Sigh. S Woodside writes: > FYI for those who are working on geographic routing schemes. > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon Jul 14, 2003 5:34:42 PM Canada/Eastern > > To: Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: IETF 57 Multu6 WG - Monday morning session - minutes > > > > On maandag, jul 14, 2003, at 19:02 Europe/Amsterdam, Geoff Huston > > wrote: > > > >> - - draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-01.txt, Iljitsch van > >> Beijnum, > >> 15 min > > > >> Geographical aggregation. Admitted that topology is not correlated > >> to geography, and even if the geo part doesn't work there are still > >> some savings. > > > > > > I did say a little more than that... I'll put the slides up at > > http://www.muada.com/ietf57-isp-int.pdf as soon as I'm online again > > (which should be around the time this message gets out). In the mean > > time: > > > > - Goal is enabling multihoming ASAP. This is a short term solution. > > - It works by distributing the global routing table over the routers > > within an (ISP) network rather than giving every router a full copy as > > is done today. > > - This would lead to scenic routing but the geo aspect repairs this. > > - Unless there is insufficient interconnection between networks, then > > aggregation must be broken. > > - Geographic aggregates are internal to each network and not annouced > > externally. > > - Correlation between topology and geography is less than 1, but also > > more than 0 and even without geography there are still some savings. > > - No real downsides: RIRs must implement geographic address > > allocation, ISPs can implement this (or not) at their convenience. > > > >> MH: This gives little actual aggregation > >> ?: Asymmetrical routes break in your model > >> IvB: Routing is asymmetrical in multi-homing in any case. > > > > What I said was: today it's assymmetrical anyway (re hot potato > > routing) and when both sides do geo aggregation it is still > > assymmetrical, when one end is geo multihomed and the other isn't it's > > symmetrical. But read the draft as it has a section on exactly this > > issue from an ISP traffic distribution viewpoint. > > > >> Tony Hain: Aggregatibility is the question. The concept appears fine, > >> but you are making assumptions about aggregation boundaries here. > > > > Short answer: you can make your own boundaries or this can even work > > with your (Tony's) geographic addressing plan. Long answer: no time > > for the long answer... > > > > > > -- > anti-spam: do not post this address publicly > www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > -- "Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." -- Aldous Huxley (1894 - 1963) -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
