nanog mailing list archives
Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation
From: "Kent W. England" <kwe () geo net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:09:04 -0800
At 10:25 AM 17-11-97 -0500, Sean M. Doran wrote:
... Hierarchical routing is the only known means of scaling IP addresses as they exist now, and therefore the only hierarchy that can be imposed on IP addresses is strictly topological.
This is true, but the definition of the top of the hierarchy is arbitrary and is the nexus of the debate about "topological" versus geographical addressing, which I interpret as "ISP at top" versus "exchange point at top" hierarchies. Both are valid topological hierarchies. --Kent
Current thread:
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean Donelan (Nov 10)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Geoff Huston (Nov 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean Donelan (Nov 16)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 16)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean M. Doran (Nov 17)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 17)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 16)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean M. Doran (Nov 17)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Kent W. England (Nov 20)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Vadim Antonov (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean Doran (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Vadim Antonov (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean M. Doran (Nov 23)
- Message not available
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 17)
