IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 03 February 2011 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5747B3A69F7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:53:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.522, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zmCI77g9nPo5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:53:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 675E53A6998 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:53:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11553 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2011 22:02:59 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 3 Feb 2011 22:02:59 -0000
Message-ID: <4D4B2459.2030500@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:55:37 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02
References: <4D48B4EA.20503@isi.edu> <4D490FED.6060303@gont.com.ar> <4D4996AE.8060302@isi.edu> <4D49FF33.7030107@gont.com.ar> <4D4A0017.6050401@isi.edu> <4D4A03CE.9020105@gont.com.ar> <4D4A051C.1060501@gont.com.ar> <4D4A09A5.3050306@isi.edu> <4D4A168C.6060100@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4D4A168C.6060100@gont.com.ar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:53:16 -0000

Fernando Gont wrote:

> The fact that geo-location was not considered in the IP design, is
> irrelevant. As noted, IP wasn't meant for production, either.

As the address sharing occurs only at the edge, it is quite
unlikely that geo location approximation breaks.

You can assume hosts sharing an address have the same location,
much more safely than assume hosts in a /24 address range have
the same location.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email