Subject: Re: geo short vs long term? [Re: Geo pros and cons]

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 07:37:49 -0500

Look, everyone, this is all really stupid.

Geographic addressing has been discussed extensively about 17 times in the
IETF, and every time it has been rejected. Discussing it one more time is not
going to change this. There is *never* going to be a rough consensus *in
favour of* geographic addressing. There will *always* be a lot of people
against it - enough to stop it in the proposal stage.

The really sad thing is that something productive might have been done with
all this time and energy that's being wasted.

	Noel

---

From: "Michael H. Lambert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 08:10:36 -0500

Noel,

Since you have more historical context than many of us on the list, could 
you please summarize the arguments which have been used against geo?  I 
suspect that they are mainly financial and political, but there might be 
technical issues I'm unaware of.

Thanks,

Michael

--On Thursday, 3 April 2003 07:37 -0500 "J. Noel Chiappa" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> IETF, and every time it has been rejected. Discussing it one more time is
> not going to change this. There is *never* going to be a rough consensus
> *in favour of* geographic addressing. There will *always* be a lot of
> people against it - enough to stop it in the proposal stage.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:13:10 +0200

On donderdag, apr 3, 2003, at 14:37 Europe/Amsterdam, J. Noel Chiappa 

> against it - enough to stop it in the proposal stage.

If we sail too far to the west we fall off the earth and bumblebees 
can't fly.

Since explaining it all again is unlikely to make a difference, I'll 
just observe that none of the objections I've heard to date include a 
part where they show "if you implement this, under reasonable 
real-world conditions W and X, router Y will need a routing table of Z 
routes, which is too large".