North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Date: Mon Nov 22 18:49:29 2004
On 22-nov-04, at 21:42, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
that network topology and geography don't
correlate. My counter-objection is that the correlation doesn't have
to
be 1 to be able to take advantage of it when it's present.
On the other hand, unless you have some way to *enforce* a higher
correlation
than we already have, how do you propose to get a better result than we
currently (mostly accidentally) get via CIDR aggregation?
There is no enforcing as such. All the gory details are in
http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr
-01.txt
For instance, 212.x.y.z is "known" to be on one continent, and so on -
but
how do you leverage that into a 212/8 routing entry?
Well, suppose we know 212/8 is used in Europe. A network that is
present in say, North America and Europe then has the routers in Europe
that talk to the routers in America filter out all 212/8 more specifics
and only announce the aggregate instead. In the simple version this
only works if there is full interconnection for all 212/8 destination
in Europe. In the more complex version there is selective deaggregation
for some destinations to overcome lack of local peering.
|
