29 Sep
2001
29 Sep
'01
6:09 a.m.
--On Friday, 28 September, 2001 10:12 PM -0400 Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
Of course, we could adopt geographic allocations. North American is still working on (+1) in e.164 space. We could shrink the global route table to a few thousand routes.
We have this at a continental level. At less than a continental level the argument against this is that at lower distances there is a poorer and poorer map between geographic proximity and (network) topological proximity. Pick any major US city without a popular peering point / private peering for a trivial example. Alex Bligh Personal Capacity