>> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> For the record, you've yet to persuade me that these schemes are >> aggregatable in the real world of competitive ISPs.
> Tony Hain wrote: > I understand the concern, but it comes down to a matter of > cost/benefit tradeoff. If a geo scheme turns out to be cheaper to > maintain than an ever expanding table full of holes, it will be > deployed. The task at hand is finding *any* scheme that will > create provider independent addresses in an operationally sound > way. Agree with Tony. Brian, I don't expect a miracle in terms of aggregation initially. ISPs will aggregate only if they find a gain in it. But if there is a gain, they will. If your concern is that they will not cooperate because they would not want to announce a prefix that contains addresses that belong to their competitors, I have addressed it in a reply to kre a few minutes ago. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
