possibly noteworthy wrote:
Decius wrote:

I'm confused. Issuing IP addresses based on geographic location is precisely what these people mean when they talk about the "identifier/locator split."

Abaddon and I ... writing a prototype ... to allow TCP connections to persist through IP address changes ...

If by geography you are referring to the Earth, then no, that's not what it means. It's more at topology rather physical location.

The problems derive not only from host mobility (which HIP attempts to address) but from pervasive multihoming and the drive for provider-independent address space, which is inherently at odds with aggregation.

This is about BGP more than it is about end hosts.

The topology is literally defined by geography. Computers might move but large computer networks generally do not. In order for geographic IPing to solve the problems that multihoming and provider independent space cause for routing table aggregation you have to have municipal peering.

Your IP needs to reflect, at some level, a large region such as a continent, as well as a metropolitan area within it. If everyone in every metro area is roughly in the same space, and its possible for networks to trade traffic at the metro level, then backbone routing tables can be relatively simple. You'll see increased complexity within the metro peering locations, but the scope of the network they have to concern themselves with is smaller. You can have provider independent space, but its tied to your metro area, and it can get aggregated at a higher level so that it doesn't impact backbone complexity.

There really is no other way to organize things.

RE: Looming Issues in Internet Architecture