nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv8 < IPv6
From: Alan Hannan <hannan () bythetrees com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:19:57 -0500
Jay R. Ashworth demanded:
And, as I noted in a private reply: justify that statement.
Physical topology is likely to map to geographic topology. Circuits certainly do take odd L1 paths to connect L1 endpoints, but these are exceptions, not he rule. Accordingly, not allocating in a geographic fashion lends to deaggregation, which is bad. Even me, as a proponent of fully meshed architectures, recognizes that hierarchy is demanded, and will give rise to efficient network announcments if properly utilized. -alan
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)