[ppml] alternative realities (was PIv6 for legacy holders (/wRSA + efficient use))

[William Herrin]

On 7/31/07, michael.dillon at bt.com <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > c) there are entities who have more of the resource than they need
>
> If so, then they are not in compliance with global policies on IPv4
> allocation. The only entities that I know of who are in this postion are
> so-called legacy holders such as MIT. But I do not believe that entities
> like MIT have a right to monetize their IPv4 addresses when the vast
> majority of industry is playing by the rules and has no surplus.

Michael, consider if you will:

MIT offers "special" dialup accounts to all takers. The dialup is a
local number in Cambridge MA, the accounts cost $50/month and include
a /24 of IP addresses.

Each customer gets a portal. The portal allows them to do two things:
1. Turn on or off MIT's announcement of the /24 into the DFZ. If off,
only MIT's supernet route will apply.
2. Establish a GRE tunnel in lieu of the dialup. The tunnel is limited
to 128kbps unless the customer pays more.

Finally, explicit in each of these dialup contracts: the customer may
ask any other ISP to announce the /24 route into the DFZ as they
choose for so long as they continue buying the dialup account from
MIT.

In case you missed the point, the dialup is a ruse. What they're
really renting is /24's for $50/mo with a catchall tunnel just in case
someone decides to obstinately filter the long prefixes.


MIT wins by collecting upwards of $39M/yr for slicing up its /8.
Discounted tuition for all.

End users win. For a mere $50/mo they get a /24 they can use with
whatever provider they want to so long as that particular provider
isn't retaliating against MIT. Given that its a source of customers
who don't walk in requiring more of my scarce IPv4 addresses and MIT
clearly isn't competing with me, why would I try that hard to
retaliate?

The community overall loses with upwards of 65k new routes slammed
into the IPv4 DFZ.

Policies violated? None. No global policy defines MIT's use of that
/8. They're not even a legacy registrant under ARIN; the in-addr.arpa
delagation comes from further upstream.


Yeah, okay, so its a little far fetched to think that MIT would do
anything quite so crass. But they're not the only ones sitting on a
/8.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004