Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6]
hannan at bythetrees.com
Thu Nov 6 22:03:49 UTC 1997
I have left off a clause that makes my point of view inconsistent.
My comments regarding geographic correlation were with regards to a
specific [example of a] provider's network allocation.
On a provider by provider basis, topology does, and will
increasingly, match geography.
Networks that span large geographic areas should be deaggregated
into regional ares such that aggregation can be efficiently
Additionally, within this provider, they should allocate their
chunk of the address space in a geographic manner.
So you have correlation at the high level (providers in an area)
and at a low level (particular provider's IP addressing in a
small area). I did not mean to [though I certainly did] imply
that 2 separate providers would have a strong correlation of IP
address allocation in a locallized geographic region.
Let's take these examples:
KINDISP has a network in 4 continents. They obtain 4
separate sets of network space from the corresponding NICs.
They then develop an allocation plan [ignoring crystal
balls, but utilizing inferences from business plans and
historical trends] and allocate netblocks in a regional
DUMBISP had a network in 1 continent. They expand into 3
more and continue to use their same original netblock. They
allocate addresses chronologically, instead of
This continental allocation is being done today, the NSP's
internal allocation is what I was attempting to focus on.
Quoting Paul Ferguson (ferguson at cisco.com):
> At 04:35 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
> > The lack of correlation is the exception, in my experience, than
> > the rule.
> I'm not sure I agree, but that's not really the point.
> I believe the point is that we should not assume that
> they are one and the same. Topology (or as they say in
> IPv6-speak, aggregator, next-level-aggregator, etc.) is
> quite critical in maintaining sufficient levels of
> - paul
More information about the NANOG