nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv8 < IPv6
From: Alan Hannan <hannan () bythetrees com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:35:01 -0500
Paul, We agree on all but this small point. Certainly one should allocate ip address space in a topological manner. However, I know of several large NSP/ISPs that don't because there's no [technological or economic] punitive incentive for them to do so. I believe that the correlation between topology and geography will increase as a function of time. In fact, I believe that today the correlation is quite high. The lack of correlation is the exception, in my experience, than the rule. -alan Quoting Paul Ferguson (ferguson () cisco com):
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
Current thread:
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6, (continued)
- 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)
- Message not available
- 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)