On 22-nov-04, at 21:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
