Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On 22-nov-04, at 17:53, Mohacsi Janos wrote:

> > And don't forget that you still have to change your phone number when 
> > you move a great enough distance. In IP we somehow feel it's 
> > important that there are no geographical constraint on address use at 
> > all. That's a shame, because even if we aggregate by contintent that 
> > would save up to four times in the number of entries in the routing 
> > table of any router.

> Then why geographic based aggregated IPv6 addresses disposed? 
> Geographic based addresses can solve the agregation quite nicely.

The general objection (apart from incorrect assumptions based on old 
incomplete work) is 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.

>  Unfortunately the uniqueness can be problematic....

How do you mean?