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

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <]

On 7-dec-2005, at 13:12, Oliver Bartels wrote:

> ( In English: Kehl and Strassbourg want to work jointly
>   together to form a single Eurodistrict / city with e.g. a single  
> phone
>   network. )
The point isn't that geographical addressing fits perfectly with the  
way network topologies are laid down. The point is that there is a  
decent saving, of say, a factor 10 or better.

In practical terms: if Kehl and Strassbourg (Straßburg?) are on  
different sides of a national border but they're part of the same  
topological entity in the network, you simply have the Kehl routes in  
Strassbourg and the Strassbourg routes in Kehl. So rather than have  
one set of routes you have two. Obviously that means twice as many  
routes as you'd have when the geographical addressing was aligned  
with topology, but it's still a factor 32768 better than what you'd  
have with flat PI so who cares.

And, for 90% of the routers throughout the world, both aggregate to  
"western europe" anyway.

--
I've written another book! http://www.runningipv6.net/