> Simple: everyone gets a chunk of space out of their provider. What's > so hard here? You know the (local) roots of the tree, correct? > If you don't use the global roots and then truncate at your geographic > boundary. I do not understand what you mean by "roots of the tree". We know that the topology even in your part of the world is largely hierarchical, and is supported by several large backbones. If you assign PA space to these backbones and then have them in turn allocate space for their customers, then I think it no longer matters who is an ISP. Aggregation can happen. But all their customers would have to renumber too! Correct. Major topological shifts imply major amounts of renumbering. If they cannot get address space other than via their provider they will scream "restraint of trade" and/or seriously attack the regional registries and IANA who will have little defense. I think "no technical choice" is a pretty good defense. Government regulation will be called for and gladly provided by the world's governments. And the 'Net implodes again. Come on, be serious. > Who is providing _backbone_ connectivity? What is the _backone_? I though we had just getten rid of the last ISP who claimed to be "the backbone". Yes, we now no longer use the singular. It is quite clear who is in the default-free portion of the net. It does not exist. It is not deployed. It is not even defined. True. But it is not harder than the problem that you're asking me to solve: make much bigger, must faster hardware for free. Tony