> > I think we need a researcher to sit down and > > figure out exactly what this would look like > > in a sample city and a sample national provider.
> especially: > http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt > > will be quite of your liking. Not at all. This proposal is all about allocating addresses based on country boundaries and I reject this model. The Internet is a network of cities, not countries. The national boundaries are completely random in technical terms, but the cities are not random. The cities are where the people are, where the railways and roads are, where the channels of trade and communication begin and end. > Which indeed seems quite reasonable. The problem with this is: > 'who is paying for which traffic and to whom' Customers pay for all the traffic on their link and they pay their money to their Internet access provider. But that is beside the point. > Notez bien, though this solves multihoming, it doesn't solve relocation, > thus if your company moves it has to renumber, and renumbering is no fun, Not true. If a company moves across the city and connects to a different access provider, they don't have to renumber. After all, they are still in the same city. It just means that inside that city, the providers will carry an additional longer prefix in their routing tables. But the global view will be unchanged. In fact, the smaller global table allows for much more detail to be carried locally, given the same constraints of RAM and processing power in routers. --Michael Dillon
