%
% At 10:22 AM -0700 4/25/00, Bill Manning wrote:
% >Given the nature of trans-oceanic b/w vs. local b/w arguments I've heard
% >over the years, I'd say that these delegations are esentially constrained
% >to topological subregions and that for the most part, having the largest
% >incumbent ISPs in each region announce the respective /8 would roughly
% >meet the IPv6, heirarchical aggregation argument.
%
% A few counter-points:
%
% - As you know, I am a fan of geographic addressing (to provide a
% real, scalable, user-friendly solution to most of the multihoming
% and renumbering problems), but as you also know, proposals to do
% any sort of geographic routing have usually been met with
% hostility and derision from the ISP community and others, because
% of the topological constraints and interchange requirements it
% would impose on the ISPs. I welcome you to try, but don't get
% your hopes up.
And why do you think that the ISP community and others will not
meet the IPv6 routing proposal with anything less than the
"hostility and derision" that came from the previous attempts
to impose "topological constraints and interchange requirements"
on them?
% - Are there not a large number of Class B addresses (and Class C
% addresses, but maybe those have all been filtered out by now)
% that were assigned before the registries were established, and
% thus not aggregatable under the registry allocation prefixes?
Yup, a bunch.
% - Why are we talking about this? Yes, you could adopt the same
% or a similar address allocation/aggregation policy in IPv4 as
% has been specified for IPv6, if you were starting all over again
% with IPv4. But so what?
Well, for two reasons: a) IPv4 address delegation policy, since
about 1996 has been done at a gross level, on continental bounds
(e.g. the RIR model) so there is a rough alignment with the proposed
IPv6 plan, at least as far as "modern" delegations are concerned.
This is something that could be exploited for testing to see if the
IPv6 delegation/aggregation plan is actually going to fly.
b) We have IPv4 addresses as legacy environments that -RIGHT NOW-
are showing problems with computing/maintaining state in a dynamic
world. If we can "prove" the solution in the IPv4 world, then that
would remove much of the "hostility & derision" when moving on to
IPv6.
Two thoughts from here... :)
%
% Steve
%
%
--
--bill
