[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Questions about geographical dependent addresses



Geographical is a possible topology according to all of my topology books. As every map projection illustrates by constructing a topology between the map and the physical world. Whether that topology and a particular graph have a topological relation is a different matter. A network in and of itself has no topology.



At 13:50 +0100 12/2/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Achim,

A localisation seems to be necessary for the Internet, otherwise so many
people would not work on a localisation for Internet users
(geopriv,ecrit, etc.).

No, this doesn't follow. The fact that there are commercial motivations for geolocation or possible invasions of privacy using geolocation doesn't mean it's *necessary*. In fact, in many cases it may be highly undesirable. Preventing any possibility of geolocation might be more desirable than allowing it, depending on circumstances.

...
As the IPv6 addresses have enough space to map an area code, I don't
understand why it is never be implemented.

Because IP routing works by topology, not by geography. There is no particular reason why logically adjacent address blocks would be geographically adjacent. Therefore, the concept of "area code" is simply meaningless in the IP context.

    Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------