|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Market-based address allocation
At 03:43 PM 4/30/2003 -0500, Jack Bates wrote: In retrospect, I agree--it was ambiguous. I was trying to suggest two things simultaneously, because I think both are necessary.Actually, your entire argument starts off very poorly. - Treat IPv4 netblocks as a commodity - Recover costs on a per-advertisement basis (in addition to bandwidth charges) 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.No, IP address blocks should be treated as a commodity. Carrying a routing advertisement should be a paid-for service, or part of a peering settlement. 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.Exactly right. That's precisely the incentive we desire, because it would encourage people to use provider-based addressing when possible. It would also allow people to be multi-homed, but if they want it they will have to pay something for it. The downstreams would pass along the costs of carrying the advertisement to the customer, where it belongs. 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.Outrageous pricing assumes scarcity. Are IPv4 addresses really that scarce? And would they be scarce if people could buy and sell them on the open market? === Bill Nickless http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless +1 630 252 7390 PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7 [email protected]
|