[ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting

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