Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On 22-nov-04, at 21:42, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:

> > that network topology and geography don't
> > correlate. My counter-objection is that the correlation doesn't have  
> > to
> > be 1 to be able to take advantage of it when it's present.

> On the other hand, unless you have some way to *enforce* a higher  
> correlation
> than we already have, how do you propose to get a better result than we
> currently (mostly accidentally) get via CIDR aggregation?

There is no enforcing as such. All the gory details are in  
http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr 
-01.txt

> For instance, 212.x.y.z is "known" to be on one continent, and so on -  
> but
> how do you leverage that into a 212/8 routing entry?

Well, suppose we know 212/8 is used in Europe. A network that is  
present in say, North America and Europe then has the routers in Europe  
that talk to the routers in America filter out all 212/8 more specifics  
and only announce the aggregate instead. In the simple version this  
only works if there is full interconnection for all 212/8 destination  
in Europe. In the more complex version there is selective deaggregation  
for some destinations to overcome lack of local peering.