RE: Resolving geo discussions

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I have to throw in the towel and say I think Tony, Noel and Christian
convinced me.  Geo as core method in our architecture is not going to
fly nor should we try to push this as RFC std. But doing bottom up
probably will happen is my guess.  I think an INFO RFC or BCP would get
consensus here stating the ramifications of using this approach, but its
your own trip.

I would suggest this would put this debate as lets document it and issue
BCP and we move on to solve the problem at hand with architecture we can
review.  Maybe if we had matrix of each one proposed on slide we could
share as idea?  

- We kill this discussion and turn it into work with deliverable.
- We remove it to continue the architecture effort
- And maybe we could produce a doc INFO/BCP that would be useful and the
IETF would think we have some clue as a team to produce something others
can use :--)
- And we don't discuss it for 10 more years and just point to the RFC
which will be useful to those who have children and come here to do work
someday :--)

/jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 4:24 PM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Resolving geo discussions
> 
> 
> > > 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
> 
> 
>