[arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 4:19 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>> You may want to peruse this IRTF RRG discussion on this topic:
>> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg01781.html .
> That is a discussion about replacing the current routing
> paradigm with a geographically-based routing paradigm
> CA addressing is not about replacing anything but about
> providing an additional option for people to work with.
Addressing is routing is addressing. How many cities does a typical
ISP span? With addresses aggregated by city, each ISP+city pair would
have to be announced as a separate prefix, just as the multinational
ISPs have to announce their regional RIR-allocated prefixes separately
today. And as discussed in the RRG thread, the prefix announcements
don't successfully aggregate across ISPs in the same city.
There are few enough multinationals that the split by RIR is not a
serious problem though even there you'd get slightly better
aggregation by having each org declare a home RIR and get its global
addresses from only that one. Start divvying up by much smaller
geographies like cities and you could see a routing table explosion.
Every conceivable form of geographic addressing has been exhaustively
explored in the research community since the early ideas like CA. Vast
numbers of man-hours were spent chasing it in the hopes it would prove
to be a Holy Grail. It's a blind alley. There's nothing there to be
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004