Re: [lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <]

> > > So, what we really want is PI addresses. And with the current 
> > > pratices they
> > > just do not aggregate which also is a bad thing. This is why I think 
> > > the
> > > geographical approach already mentioned on the list (one netblock per
> > > country, different sizes depending on population) currently is the 
> > > approach
> > > which fits that need best, I believe.
> > How do you come to that conclusion? Every other PI space will be with
> > another ISP. So even thought you might have everything close together
> > on a "human logic" level there is no way to aggregate the prefixes
> > together in the routing system. Unless of course you want to do it
> > PTT style where one is the one who routes this block.
> I think in most cases the "human logic level" also works for routing. 
> So
> I guess many people will carry the complete routingtable for those 
> countries
> they communicate a lot with (mostly this will be the own country and 
> some
> nearby, but YMMV) and just have a few aggregates like "send all 
> traffic to
> $farcountry1 to uplink A, send all for $farcountry2 via uplink B etc".
...and if you are a "Tier-1" operator that is also selling services all 
across the globe and use one single AS-number, you will end up having 
to carry all those routes anyway....and guess what, the "Tier-1"s are 
coming to the conclusion that routes equals state equals costs. Cost 
need to be recovered. I think you can work out the rest.

> I think this could be a good compromise between every multihomed user 
> has to
> be in every routing table and ongoing provider dependance.
It's a good idea, but the world doesn't really look that way.

- kurtis -

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature