nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv8 < IPv6
From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:33:36 -0500
At 04:21 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
Correction: Not allocating in a topological fashion lends to deaggregation. Geography often has nothing to do with it.We are talking the *world* here,
Duh. And geography is *not* important. I can show you several organizational networks located in one country, with their principle Internet connectivity located in another country entirely. Geographic location means absolutely nothing. It is where they connect in the global hierarchy. In the example above, if addresses are allocated solely based on geographic criteria, I can assure you that you will have a much, much larger number of prefixes in the global routing table. Why do you think that the allocating authorities automagically ask requesters to first ask their upstreams for address space? - paul
Current thread:
- IPv8 < IPv6 Jim Fleming (Nov 05)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 05)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 05)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 05)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 05)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Richard Irving (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 05)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
- Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
- Message not available
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: IPv8 < IPv6 Rodney Joffe (Nov 06)
- RE: IPv8 < IPv6 Jim Fleming (Nov 11)
