Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.

Dave Siegel dsiegel at
Mon Sep 25 20:28:00 UTC 1995

> Look, we have two choices: we can make the addressing follow the 'net's
> topology, or we can make the 'net's topology follow the addressing. They
> *have* to be connected, *we* only get to chose which comes first.
> Making the addresses follow the topology means that we have a lot more
> flexibility to make the connectivity respond to traffic patterns, policy
> demands, etc, etc; the addresses then trail along behind. If the topology has
> to follow the addressing, you *can't* have the topology be completely free to
> respond to user's needs.

Well, if we use a concept of dynamic communities, by using tools to constantly
analyze 'show ip bgp' outputs, and compare against existing community 
strucutures, I think we can built a distribution filter that can isolate
specific routes to where they need to be, providing only a very minimum
of free transit to various providers.  It encompasses a combination of 
geographic and provider based addressing, and would float between the two
as migrations occur (probably on a weekly basis).

I'm working on such a thing now.  Don't know when I'll have a proposal 
finished, though.

Dave Siegel			President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc.
(520)318-0696			Systems Consultant -- Unix, LANs, WANs, Cisco
dsiegel at			User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP,						for an ISP."

More information about the NANOG mailing list