RE: Resolving geo discussions

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> > 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