[ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dan Luedtke
maildanrl at googlemail.com
Mon Sep 19 14:19:03 CEST 2011
2011/9/19 Jasper Jans <Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl>: >> It sounds suspiciously like ITU for me (ie, bad). It imposes previously >> non-existent architectural limits and constraints on Internet routing That's exactly what I thought. > Why, for example, didn't you suggest nation state borders? If, and only if, anyone really would suggest practically borders, then please no nation state borders. Peering-Regions could be an idea, e.g. AMSIX-region, DECIX-region and at all places where LIRs use to peer. How do LIRs handle the issue at the moment? I guess I would just add a default route to my routing table for one (or more) transit providers. Or buy a better(tm) router if I could afford it. Sorry for being barefaced, but although I appreciate the idea, I just don't think it is doable yet. One cannot aggegrate routes when it is not reflected on the corresponding infrastructure, can one? regards, danrl -- danrl / Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]