|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Market-based address allocation
In message <[email protected]>, Jack Bates writes: > >Bill Nickless wrote: > >> >> As a thought experiment, think of how the IPv4 addressing situation >> (bogon advertisements, allocations, explosion of routing table sizes, >> etc) would be different if the IP community treated IP addresses as a >> commodity. > >Actually, your entire argument starts off very poorly. You are stating >that IP addresses should be treated as a commodity, yet what you are >really trying to state is that routing advertisements should be treated >as a commodity. These are two different concepts. If we pay for IP >addresses, there's still nothing to keep us from advertising longer >prefixes. If we pay for advertisements, large providers will just work >it into their peering agreements and then collect money from their >customers for their adverts.You'd also have to figure out who pays who? >Do I get paid for every route sent to me? I usually have 120,000+ routes >sitting in my router. Please send me my money. > >If you aren't refering to advertisements, then bogon advertisements, >hijackings, and route table explosions will still be an issue. Without >mandating necessity, I'd also point out that there would no longer be >IPv4 address space available except at outrageous prices for smaller >networks that wish to multi-home and have their own netblocks. > >-Jack > > See http://www.research.att.com/~smb/papers/piara/index.html for a paper on the subject. (We held a BoF at the IETF many years ago; there was sufficient pushback that we didn't pursue the question.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
|