North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Address clustering intuition
- From: Jim Dixon
- Date: Fri Nov 10 03:03:45 1995
On Thu, 9 Nov 1995, Geert Jan de Groot wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 1995 10:16:39 -0700 "Walter O. Haas" wrote:
> > I've formed an intuition that, if all IP addresses were portable (ie.
> > independent of ISP) and assigned on a strictly geographic basis, then
> > there would *automatically* be clustering of addresses equivalent to
> > that obtained from CIDRization as a result of marketplace forces and
> > the practicalities of technology.
> No, this does not work. Looking at Europe, I know of several ISPs
> to which the shortest path from here (Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
> is via MAE-EAST; they either don't have external connectivity
> on the continent itself, or we have no provider willing to provide
> transit between here and their continental connectivity.
This is a very strange argument. There is always someone willing
to provide transit for the right fee.
> There is a second, similar reason: assume that A and B each operate
> in the same area. They use different carriers for transit to MAE-EAST.
> Who of these is going to announce the aggregated announcement?
What aggregated announcement? Under his scheme, IP addresses are
distributed geographically. Transit carriers would be responsible
for getting a packet to the correct regional distribution center.
Carriers would peer there and pick up their own customers' traffic.
> > Note that this results from the address being, not the property of the
> > ISP or the end user, but rather of a geographic location. In other words
> > under my scheme if I picked up and moved a hundred miles I'd have to
> > renumber, but if I just switched ISPs I wouldn't.
Jim Dixon email@example.com
VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
VBCnet West Inc +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684