Subject: RE: Resolving geo discussions

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:04:30 -0700

> The way I see it, many of the "con" arguments may turn out to be quite
> valid. However, there are also many ways in which geo aggregation
could
> be successful. Maybe it will solve the multihoming scaling problem for
> 10, 5 or just 2 years. Or it just helps regional networks to optimize
> their routing. I don't think there is any way to determine this
> beforehand.

We have had this discussion many times in the past 10 years. After many
rounds of e-mail, the consensus generally is that if geo is going to
happen, it will happen "bottom up" and be user driven. For example, one
may see the chamber of commerce of lower Picardy request a /32 from
RIPE, and use it to provides "independent" /48 addresses to its members,
using a combination of tunnels and arrangements with local ISP. In fact,
there are already a few virtual ISP operating under this model.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:51:01 +0200

On vrijdag, apr 11, 2003, at 19:04 Europe/Amsterdam, Christian Huitema 
wrote:

>> I don't think there is any way to determine this beforehand.

> happen, it will happen "bottom up" and be user driven.

This is news to me. I would really appreciate some pointers to archives 
of these past discussions.

> For example, one

So if I want to do this in a slightly larger area, say everything 
within a 20000 km radius of The Hague, I could get a larger address 
block, say a /16?