Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

["Oliver Bartels" <]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:44:36 +0000, Michael.Dillon@localhost wrote:
>Geographical aggregation does not REQUIRE free transit.
>It is up to the ISPs to decide how to leverage geographical
>aggregation, how to recover transit costs and how to
>construct and change their business models. 

A Management Consultant would say:
"Our solution, your problem"

>Nevertheless, the Rhine river still exists.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,388814,00.html

( In English: Kehl and Strassbourg want to work jointly
  together to form a single Eurodistrict / city with e.g. a single phone
  network. )

The Rhine is no border at all for bits and bytes, use a STM-1
directional radio link.

>The Alps still exist.

... and offer great opportunities for radio links, too.

Again: A STM-1 between Frankfurt and London will be
typically less expensive than between Frankfurt and
Wiesbaden.

>In fact, once the RIRs have decided how many addresses to
>reserve for each city greater than 100,000 population, and how
>to cluster cities in to larger groupings, there is no need for
>anyone to think about the geographical issues again.

And then every ISP puts in a prefix for his part of the geopolitical
address range of every city in which it shows presence, thus
giving us an enormous growth in the number of routing table prefixes.

Great idea, obviously suitable for the "big prize" of the association
of memory chip makers ...

Best Regards
Oliver Bartels



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver@localhost + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0