BCP for multisite multihoming

[Nick Hilliard]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:17:54PM +0100, Carlos Garcia Braschi wrote:
> I'm not sure if this has been proposed already, but what if we did
> geographic addressing but assigned the addresses to
> interconnect/peering points? (requiring that they be used to cover the
> region the IX is in, and that among all the peering partners manage to
> exchange locally the un-aggregated routing tables).

Can we agree to consign the idea of geographic addressing to the scrap heap
where it belongs, please?  It's not going to work, ever - and we need to
stop pretending that it has any future.  It will work the day that the
Internet (big "I") is operated as a strict tree structure, which is to say,
never.

Let's be clear here.  Why should a company operate its business using
address space which is encumbered with shackles to other connectivity
providers (IXPs, transit providers, etc)?  It makes no sense, because it
deprives the company of the ability to make choices about their ability to
route traffic on the Internet.  No sane businses is going to put themselves
in this position because this way lies monopolies, high prices and all the
problems caused by lack of competition that we've historically seen.

I have a better idea.  Instead of using IXPs who quite often have rules
about not engaging in this sort of non IXP-related stuff, let's bring back
the idea of the incumbent telco, and give them a monopoly on regional /
national address space management.  And transit / connectivity too, because
that's the only way to make geographic addressing really work.  And
everything else.

Is it now clearer why this is such a bad idea?

Nick Hilliard
--
Network Ability Ltd. | Technical Operations    | Tel: +353 1 6169698
3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick at inex.ie