[ppml] IPv4 address and routing slot markets

[Robert Bonomi]

> From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at sprunk.org>
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:40:50 -0500
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 address and routing slot markets
>
> If buyers had to purchase transit from the seller to get useful 
> reachability, it's no longer a sale/transfer of PI address space but rather 
> a SWIP of PA space to a (possibly multihomed) transit customer.  That isn't 
> what I thought we were discussing when we talk about a black/gray/white 
> market for addresses, since a mechanism for _renting_ address space already 
> exists.
>
> If I'm going to go to the hassle of _buying_ address space, I want it to be 
> completely PI and have full reachability without any requirement for the 
> seller to continue providing me transit service.  That is, AIUI, what people 
> are afraid of because it necessitates the buyer getting a slot in the DFZ 
> for each purchased block.

If that is what you _think_ you're buying you better have in the contract
with the seller that that *is* what they're selling.

_Somebody_ has to pay for those resources, and unless you have a _contratual_
commitment for someone to provide them to you, you are *NOT* assured of having
them.  Even in today's world, -with- an adress-block acquuired directly from
an RIR, you're _still_ not 'guarantee' a DFZ routing 'slot'.

What is the liklihood that contracts for connectivity/transit/peering will
start to place limits on the number of prefixes that can be announced/serviced?

That will *really* drive aggregation.  Including attempts to 'trade' multiple
non-contguous blocks for a single contiguous one of 'equivalent' size.

This could involve some, large-scale, 'painful' renumbering,  but does have
potential to significantly reduce DFZ table size.   <grin>