[ppml] Free Market

[David Conrad]

[last post of the weekend, must be better things to do with my time]

Paul,

On Aug 25, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> ... and we're told we can handle "2M routes today, 10M with no
>> change in technology" (if you believe your friendly router vendor).
> noone believes router vendors who say that, ...

Actually, some do.  Many in the IETF, for example, including some on  
the IAB.  Some even on NANOG.  Perhaps not so many on this mailing  
list but preaching to the choir is easier I suppose.

> those constraints will modify the meaning of PI sufficiently that  
> we'd be
> discussing it as a third possibility.

"All PI" and "all PA" are merely theoretical extremes of the  
aggregation continuum.  Right now, political/economic pressure is  
pushing us towards the PI side.  Once it gets far enough to that side  
that people begin to seriously worry about their routers falling  
over, ISPs will take what steps they feel appropriate to protect  
their own infrastructure.  This isn't new -- we've been here before  
and some of us still have the t-shirts.  It is no more "doomish" than  
the original bout of CIDRization was back in the mid-90s.  Annoying?   
Yes.  Distressing, particularly to folks at the end of long  
prefixes?  Sure. "Internet is DOOMED!!" No.  Can we please throttle  
back on the FUD?

>> With oil, or rather carbon dioxide (and perhaps less  
>> controversially, with
>> sulphur dioxide) emissions, governments have implemented 'tradable  
>> emission
>> allowances', a reasonable short summary of one done in the US is at
>> http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/cost/emission.htm.
>
> i also like <http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/ 
> 963.html>.  (i
> assume you meant the above as a joke, so i'm sharing one i find  
> funnier.)

Before ridiculing, you might want to try to understand what is being  
suggested.  Or not.

Regards,
-drc