Subject: RE: Resolving geo discussions

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:35:34 -0400

> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>

    > another round of "this can't work" / "yes it can" discussions about
    > geographic aggregation. While doing this from time to time is a lot of
    > fun, I'm sure we can all find more productive things to do with our
    > time.

Exactly.

    > So how do we resolve this in a way that is satisfactory to everyone?

We probably can't. The two sides are pretty firmly entrenched, and without
changing that, some group is likely to be unhappy.

    > Is there a way we can arrive on some consensus as to whether the
    > (potential) downsides are worth the potential gain?

No, because there will almost certainly be a large contingent who do not
agree with that position (that "the (potential) downsides are worth the
potential gain"). So I don't think any consensus around that position is
feasible.

As Christian points out, there is nothing to stop people from experimenting
with it locally, though.

	Noel

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:22:39 +0200

On vrijdag, apr 11, 2003, at 19:35 Europe/Amsterdam, J. Noel Chiappa 

> changing that, some group is likely to be unhappy.

Still, I think it would be useful to try sufficiently hard that the 
remaining disagreements can only be attributed to differing world 
views, and not to lack of understanding or effort. Then at least we all 
know we don't have to do it again for a good long time.

> potential gain"). So I don't think any consensus around that position 

Why not? We're all reasonable people, aren't we? Obviously everyone is 
going to assess things (especially the risks) differently, but a nice 
large safety margin should help here.

By the way, why would people who are against geo aggregation be against 
trying it? That way, they get to say "I told you so" when it fails.

> As Christian points out, there is nothing to stop people from 

I think what many people fail to realize is that you get to encode a 
small amount of information in the addressing hierarchy "for free". 
Being able to determine where a network is (for whatever definition of 
"where" we choose to apply) just by looking at the first bits of the 
prefix can be very useful in certain circumstances. However, the fact 
that this information is there doesn't mean everyone automatically has 
to act on it.

In other words: if having an organization announce the /32 is the only 
way to get this show on the road, that's not the best way to do it, but 
it's better than nothing. But we should then still allocate these /32s 
from some kind of geographical addressing scheme so we get to do more 
in the future without renumbering if this is successful.

---

From: Darrell Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:28:42 -0700

In theory the IETF gives large credence to "working code".  Since this
theoretical argument appears unresolvable, perhaps the way to proceed
would be to allow some pilots (as previously suggested) and see whether
geo works in practice.

The proponents get an opportunity to prove that it works.  The opponents
get an opportunity to demonstrate the damage that the pilots caused
to the v6 DFZ.  But any damage would be limited to the extent of the
pilots.

The trick is getting the resources to execute the pilots.  As long as 
this
WG allows the allocation of a few pilot geo blocks (and allows 
sufficient
freedom for the proponents to make their attempt), the proponents
have most of the burden of making the attempt.

Just my $0.02 regarding how to resolve this in a satisfactory way.

Darrell Root
[email-masked]

On Friday, April 11, 2003, at 12:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> views, and not to lack of understanding or effort. Then at least we 
> all know we don't have to do it again for a good long time.
>
> By the way, why would people who are against geo aggregation be 
> against trying it? That way, they get to say "I told you so" when it 
> fails.
>
> way to get this show on the road, that's not the best way to do it, 
> but it's better than nothing. But we should then still allocate these 
> /32s from some kind of geographical addressing scheme so we get to do 
> more in the future without renumbering if this is successful.
>
>

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:00:12 +0200

> Just my $0.02 regarding how to resolve this in a satisfactory way.

Well, I am not sure we need the WG to give a few blocks for this. I 
think that we to prove GEO allocations work, you could do with any give 
size of block. Even /48 (although it gets somewhat harder).

As for discussion so far - I think that if someone would write up the 
discussions so far, as to why geo aggregation won't work, that would be 
easier to compare to the proposals.

- kurtis -