On 7-dec-2005, at 13:12, Oliver Bartels wrote:
( In English: Kehl and Strassbourg want to work jointly together to form a single Eurodistrict / city with e.g. a single phone network. )
The point isn't that geographical addressing fits perfectly with the way network topologies are laid down. The point is that there is a decent saving, of say, a factor 10 or better. In practical terms: if Kehl and Strassbourg (Straßburg?) are on different sides of a national border but they're part of the same topological entity in the network, you simply have the Kehl routes in Strassbourg and the Strassbourg routes in Kehl. So rather than have one set of routes you have two. Obviously that means twice as many routes as you'd have when the geographical addressing was aligned with topology, but it's still a factor 32768 better than what you'd have with flat PI so who cares. And, for 90% of the routers throughout the world, both aggregate to "western europe" anyway. -- I've written another book! http://www.runningipv6.net/