[ppml] YAGAvPBAFF (was: 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments)
david.conrad at nominum.com
Thu Apr 28 17:43:58 EDT 2005
[Yet Another Geographic Addressing vs. Provider Based Addressing Food
Fight, in case you were wondering]
On Apr 28, 2005, at 5:30 AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> Since a geographic addressing model does provide for planned
> at city and regional and continental levels, it can accomodate
> growth in multihoming when the multihomed organization buys services
> from two or more ISPs in their city who support geographical
As I understand it, one of the traditional difficulties with this model
is that it would require, in order to make business sense, the
equivalent of PSTN-style settlements to deal with transit issues.
While this approach would definitely be favored by the ITU and many
PTTs, I'm not sure anyone else is particularly interested in recreating
the settlements model. Is this not an issue?
As an aside, I'm probably too cynical, but I have a sneaking suspicion
this is one of the reasons the ITU is pushing national based
> Topology does follow geography.
No it doesn't. Physical topology does (sort of by definition), but
telecommunications network topology follows economics and politics
which sometimes follow geography.
Until fairly recently, the topology of the Asia Pacific region was a
star with the US in the center because in general it was cheaper to go
through the US to send intra-AP region traffic than it was to link AP
region countries directly. I remember when two universities in
Thailand which were no more than a few miles from each other exchanged
traffic via Falls Church, VA. The situation is better now, but there
are still cases where folks in, e.g., one African country prefer to
transit Europe to reach another African country.
If bandwidth on fiber going from NY to LA via Kodiak Island becomes
cheaper than fiber going from NY to LA via Kansas City, I don't believe
the network topology will follow geography.
More information about the ARIN-PPML