![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv8 < IPv6
From: Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:21:05 -0500
Paul Ferguson wrote:
At 02:19 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:Accordingly, not allocating in a geographic fashion lends to deaggregation, which is bad.Correction: Not allocating in a topological fashion lends to deaggregation. Geography often has nothing to do with it. - paul
Paul, We are talking the *world* here, geography is actually important, as well as topology. It is a combination of geography *in conjunction* with topology. I have a neighbor that is only about 2 miles away, however, a trace runs to chicago and back. On the other hand, I have a neighbor, where the next hop is phoenix..... It takes a synergistic build , using *both* these metrics. My two cents... PS. Keep the change. ;)
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)
- RE: IPv8 < IPv6 Jim Fleming (Nov 11)