On 04/14/06 at 11:05am -0700, Michel Py <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > >> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >> However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with > >> provider independence. > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling > > simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million > > enterprise customers and ten billion total hosts to convince me. > > The problem with geo PI aggregation is expectations: if we set any > aggregation expectations it won't fly because too many people have > legitimate concerns about its feasibility. Personally I think that some > gains are possible, but I'm not sure these gains will offset the amount > of work required. I agree, especially in the near term. Aggregation is not required right now, but having the *ability* to aggregate later on is a prudent risk reduction strategy if today's cost to do so is minimal (as I think it is). > My $0.02 about geo PI: a strategy change is needed. Instead of > presenting geo PI as the solution that would give PI without impacting > the routing table (this will not fly because there are too few believers > and too many unknowns), present it as the icing on the cake of a > comprehensive non-geo PI proposal. That's exactly what I'm pushing for. I'm in the process of brainstorming with other interested parties (and potential co-authors) to put together an ARIN public policy proposal that directs ARIN to assign PI netblocks in a regular fashion instead of the current random (chronological) fashion used for IPv4. As I stated above, I don't think aggregating is necessary or wise just yet, but I think that setting things up now, to make it possible to do so later if needed, is wise and prudent, and can be done with little or no additional complexity (cost). -Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf