Subject: Geographical aggregation, was: Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:49:18 +0200

On 2 mei 2008, at 18:43, Tony Li wrote:

> |Should the geographically aggregatable address be out of the
> |consideration?

> No, geographically aggregatable addresses are not out of  
> consideration.
> However, to seriously propose them, one should also include  
> solutions to the well known issues with geographic aggregation.  At  
> the very least, these include the resulting common interconnect  
> within the geographic area and the effective mandate of the topology.

Let me take this opportunity to direct a small part of the rg's  
collective attention to a draft I wrote a while ago (ugh, has it been  
this long?):

http://ipv4.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-01.txt

The idea is that address space is given out geographically so that  
each AS can aggregate based on geography _internally_. Interconnection  
still happens the same as today, i.e., everyone announces their  
prefixes to peers at all interconnection locations, but those  
announcements are ignored outside of the target area. This has the  
nice property that everyone can draw the aggregation boundaries where  
they want so there is no need to interconnect in all locations. When  
interconnection still happens outside the privately defined target  
area, ASes can break aggregation for the prefixes in question so there  
is a tradeoff between smaller routing tables and fewer interconnect  
locations.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg