possibly noteworthy wrote: This is about BGP more than it is about end hosts.
Decius replied: The topology is literally defined by geography.
In theory you could design it that way, but this wreaks havoc on the economic model of the Internet. BGP is designed to meet business needs first, and engineering needs second. Computers might move but large computer networks generally do not.
This is not entirely true. But there is more to dynamic topology than "moving". In order for geographic IPing to solve the problems that multihoming and provider independent space cause for routing table aggregation you have to have municipal peering. Your IP needs to reflect, at some level, a large region such as a continent, as well as a metropolitan area within it.
It sounds like you're describing Steve Deering's IPv6 Metro Addressing: We propose a scheme for allocating IPv6 Geographic Addresses for use in the Internet, as an alternative to the scheme recommended in [PROV]. This scheme is consistant with the IPv6 Addressing Architecture [ARCH] and uses the "100" Format Prefix. The essence of our scheme is that the IPv6 addresses allocated to a particular "leaf" routing domain, such as a campus, a corporate site, or a personal residence, have a prefix which identifies the country and city in or near which the leaf domain attaches to a transit routing domain, such as a regional or wide-area network. Such IPv6 addresses are similar to plain old telephone numbers, which start with country and city codes (or "area codes" in North America; we forgo the "area" terminology to avoid confusion with the previous use of that word). Unlike the current practice in the telephone system, however, we allow more than one "carrier" to offer transit delivery service into, out of, and within the geographic scope of a single city code. IPv6 addresses based on city codes identify where leaf domains obtain their transit service; they do not identify the carriers providing the service.
See also, more recently, eFIT: A Proposal for Scalable Internet Routing & Addressing: Our measurement studies of the global Internet routing system show that prefix de-aggregation has led to the DFZ routing table size growing at a rate which is much faster than the Internet itself. The main causes of prefix de-aggregation include user site multihoming and traffic engineering. We propose to move Internet service providers to a separate address space as an effective solution to the routing scalability problem. We discuss different means to provide the mapping service between user and provider address spaces and the pros and cons of each approach, as well as why we believe such an architectural change is necessary to solve the routing scalability problem. ... However, location-based addressing imposes two infeasible conditions to the routing system. First, routing over location-based addresses requires that ISPs interconnect at each location. Second, location-based addresses do not reflect interconnectivity among providers to enable routing policies.
Cisco doesn't seem to think much of these kinds of schemes. From the read-ahead for the upcoming Routing Research Group meeting, and/or last week's plenary at APRICOT: Current direction doesn’t seem to be helping
• Original ipv6 strict hierarchical assignments • Fails in the face of large numbers of multihomed sites
• RIRs already moving away
• “PI for all” – see the earlier growth projections
• "geographic/metro/exchange" – constrains topology, requires new regulatory regime • "Addressing can follow topology or topology can follow addressing; choose one" – Y. Rekhter
• Shim6 – maybe workable for SOHO but nobody (SPs, hosting providers, endsites) wanting it
And finally: There really is no other way to organize things.
There are other schemes, and they are quite compelling, but they are still in the research stages. RE: Looming Issues in Internet Architecture | 
