Jeffrey,
I have to admit that I'm not happy with the paragraph you
quoted below. I think it actually contradicts another
one---"clean slate". I don't believe address aggregation
should be explicitly prohibited.
What we have now is the routing system that is built
around the addressing scheme that we have/inherited.
If the addressing scheme follows the routing hierarchy,
we can be in a much better position, methinks.
-- Alex ZininThursday, December 13, 2001, 9:28:21 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:00:08PM -0700, Alex Zinin wrote: >> Now is the most "scary" thought... Once we have different >> levels speaking different terms, we can think of independent >> addressing at each level. In this case, the complete address >> of a node would be a combination of addresses at each level >> of hierarchy. The main benefit of this approach is in the >> implicit address aggregation,
> Excepting that the requirements document states:
> : 4.5 IP Prefix Aggregation > : > : > : There are no requirements that IP Prefix aggregation be done by > : the new architecture. In fact, it is an explicit goal not to > : do so. Address allocation policies, societal pressure, and the > : random growth and structure of the Internet have all conspired > : to make prefix aggregation extraordinarily difficult, if not > : impossible.
> Theoretically, ipv6 address allocation and multihoming practices > could satisfy aggregation requirements, but ipv4 current practices > make aggregation nigh impossible at the Internet scale of things.
>> Alex Zinin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT