North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses

  • From: Jeremy Porter
  • Date: Thu Mar 14 02:13:25 1996

>>>Basically, the market demand is INCREDIBLY HIGH and businesses want to 
>>>build up infrastructure to meet this demand but the Internic IP address 
>>>allocation procedures are too confusing and take too long.
>>
>>Your proposal is?  If you say charging for address space, please
>>explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the
>>address space?
>>
>>Regards,
>>-drc
>>
>
>Deja Vu. Again.
>
>Haven't I heard this somewhere before?  :-)
>
>- paul

Well I have an idea for a proposal, strangely enough
it seems the only one that can be impletemented without
causing the providers and or agencies involved to get sued for
restraint of trade, anti-trust, or other nasty legal entanglements.

It completely avoids the mentioned address speculation problem.
And best of all it creates the least changes to existing systems.
Maybe that is a drawback :)

Its call "Route Efficiency Policy based routing", aka 
"Prefix length filtering"

The value of a particular prefix is related to who is at the destination.
And partly, the more hosts reachable via a prefix , the greater the
value of a prefix is.  Because /24s are notoriously inefficient,
portable /24s out of new allocations is just bad.

Customer's that change providers are going to have to renumber.
ISPs with tiny customer bases are going to have to renumber.
Its a cost of doing business.

Sprint is filtering, it apperas to have help stablize Sprintlink
during a critcal period.  Other providers at Feb. Nanog were talking
about filtering.

Because of IANA policies the Internic has to give people that
ask IP addresses.  They warn you that they MAY not be routable
on the global Internet.  (keep in mind you don't have to hassle with
the Internic if you want non-routable IPs, net 10 works well).

Most new machines being connected to the Internet have some
sort of DHCP, BOOTP, or other auto-numbering/auto-renumbering system.
So there is much less need for portable IP space today than
there was.  Since, we are not forcing people to renumber that
have legacy allocations, there is no REAL issue with legacy
systems.

BTW all these "small" ISPs that need portable IP address space,
contact me.  I've got a good bit of portable space, and
for the right price, I'll pay my customers to renumber out of it.
I keep hearing the claim that "routable" IP space is VALUABLE,
so lets get a list of these people that are willing to
pay for that value.  (Oh, that's right, they expect it
to be given to them for free, and they expect the rest
of the Internet to train them on BGP, DNS, Sendmail, and then
replace all our routers, because they are too lazy to renumber the
4 or 5 machines they have on that class C.)

You can't have your cake and eat it too, either the Net is a business
and you pay for routable IP space, or its a communist free love
fuck fest, and its your god-given right to have portable routable
IP space.

In every industry and business, when you keep increasing the
total pie, the cost of getting into that business goes up.
(Don't see many new long distance telephone companies, or
auto manufactures these days do you?)

If anyone doesn't think I'm completely serious about selling off
my old allocations and renumber into more effecient space, just
ask.  All of the address space I've received from the Internic
has been allocated to me under the policies existing at that time.

-- 
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      [email protected]
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  |  1-800-968-8750  |  512-339-6094
http://www.fc.net