On Thu, 9 Nov 1995, Geert Jan de Groot wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 1995 10:16:39 -0700 "Walter O. Haas" wrote:
I've formed an intuition that, if all IP addresses were portable (ie. independent of ISP) and assigned on a strictly geographic basis, then there would *automatically* be clustering of addresses equivalent to that obtained from CIDRization as a result of marketplace forces and the practicalities of technology.
No, this does not work. Looking at Europe, I know of several ISPs to which the shortest path from here (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) is via MAE-EAST; they either don't have external connectivity on the continent itself, or we have no provider willing to provide transit between here and their continental connectivity.
This is a very strange argument. There is always someone willing to provide transit for the right fee.
There is a second, similar reason: assume that A and B each operate in the same area. They use different carriers for transit to MAE-EAST. Who of these is going to announce the aggregated announcement?
What aggregated announcement? Under his scheme, IP addresses are distributed geographically. Transit carriers would be responsible for getting a packet to the correct regional distribution center. Carriers would peer there and pick up their own customers' traffic.
Note that this results from the address being, not the property of the ISP or the end user, but rather of a geographic location. In other words under my scheme if I picked up and moved a hundred miles I'd have to renumber, but if I just switched ISPs I wouldn't.
-- Jim Dixon jdd@vbc.net VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 VBCnet West Inc +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684