Subject: RE: Resolving geo discussions

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:23:56 -0700

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

Try the Big Internet mailing archives:  
ftp://munnari.oz.au/big-internet/list-archive

> > 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.
> 
> 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?

Not really. You will be subject to the same slow-start algorithm as
regular ISP. You probably will get a /32 first, and when you will have
demonstrated that you serve more than N sites, you will get a /30, etc.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:39:17 +0300 (EEST)

> demonstrated that you serve more than N sites, you will get a /30, etc.

Getting more than /32 is possible if it can be justified.  For example, in 
RIPE:

"Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /32 by
submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the
allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the
extent of the organisation's infrastructure."

Not likely to happen if there are no existing users, though.. :-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings