Heheheh... But see, wasn't that one of the whole theories behind the "aggregation" schemes built into the allocation of IPv6 address? Come now... Because we have deployed it today in a manner where that's not possible doesn't make it a "rule" per se. Is this theory any different that simply filtering the multiple allocations denoted as RIPE or APNIC allocated IPv6 chunks? I'd think not. *shrug* You're reading way too many politics into this, but not seeing the designs of IPv6 in the same light. SSDP. (Same .... Different Protocol) Scott -----Original Message----- From: Andre Oppermann [mailto:nanog-list@nrg4u.com] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:27 PM To: swm@emanon.com Cc: 'Fergie (Paul Ferguson)'; christopher.morrow@mci.com; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott Morris wrote:
We could have been much better served adding 3-bits at the beginning. Effectively giving a full IP v4 space to every continent (even Antartica) and having an extra one for the extra-terrestrial working group. ;)
And it would have given us real geographic-based filtering capabilities at the same time without any major changes to everything we have worked so hard to get to the level of insanity where we are today.
*shrug* Simple things often get overlooked.
bzzzt... You just described a rule #1 violation; IP addresses are routable entities and thus by definition unsuitable for any kind of geo-location. Rule #2 would be that IP addresses do (and must) not encode routing information, they just serve to transport data. All routing information is carried on the routing layer and applied to the forwarding layer from there. When do people learn that these layers do not intermix just like water and oil do not? I guess the only lession history teaches us is that it doesn't. -- Andre