North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
RE: Sensible geographical addressing
- From: Scott Morris
- Date: Tue Nov 30 10:23:49 2004
3 bits as a prefix would work perfectly fine IMHO.
This gives us an entire 32-bit space PER CONTINENT. As I noted before I
don't think the penguins really need that many Ips in Antartica, but that
could always be set aside. In addition, there's an extra set (only 7
continents at last count) for extra-terrestrial expansion or other needs.
And, that gives the ability to filter entire continents out if necessary.
The country code (ITU) isn't really a bad idea either, but I'm just thinking
less overall binary bits.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
David Barak
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:58 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Sensible geographical addressing
--- Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
> 10 years ago we didn't have the RIR system in place to help us with
> geographic addressing. Today we do. Now you might be able to convince
> me that we could achieve similar goals by putting together route
> registries, RIRs and some magic pixie dust.
> As far as I'm concerned, geographical route aggregation is necessary
> for the v6 network to scale. It will happen, the only question is how
> we solve the problem.
>
What exactly would be so bad about taking a page from the PSTN and using a
country-code-like system? There are under 200 countries on the whole
planet, so that's not a huge number of bits...
=====
David Barak
-fully RFC 1925 compliant-
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
|
