Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation
This is true, but the definition of the top of the hierarchy is arbitrary
Not at all true. The top of the hierarchy must be default free.
and is the nexus of the debate about "topological" versus geographical addressing, which I interpret as "ISP at top" versus "exchange point at top" hierarchies. Both are valid topological hierarchies.
True, however, geographic addressing has some rather severe practical problems. The exchange point at the top becomes a single point of failure. So it needs replication. But then, there needs to be interconnect between the exchange points. Who provides it? All this and more has been beaten to death. If you start with the premise of geographic addressing and try to beat it into working, you end up with an ISPAC. See ftp://ftp.juniper.net/pub/users/tli/ispac.txt. Tony
Tony Li wrote:
True, however, geographic addressing has some rather severe practical problems. The exchange point at the top becomes a single point of failure. So it needs replication. But then, there needs to be interconnect between the exchange points. Who provides it?
Another way to say it is that monopoly is necessary to take advantage of geographic addressing. Baby Bells do that now (with the area codes). I'm wondering what is their idea of migrating into competitive market (centralized database?) --vadim
Another way to say it is that monopoly is necessary to take advantage of geographic addressing. Baby Bells do that now (with the area codes). I'm wondering what is their idea of migrating into competitive market (centralized database?) My understanding is that they used mandated exchange points to deal with the deregulation of IXC's, but this only solves one half of the problem. Tony
participants (2)
-
Tony Li -
Vadim Antonov