[arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses
tvest at pch.net
Mon Oct 6 10:25:59 EDT 2008
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> The significant issue with straight free market approach to IP
>> address distribution is precisely the externality point you cite
>> above. At present, the actual cost incurred from making use of a
>> particular address blocks is not clearly passed back to those
>> receiving the benefit. Making use of an IP address block in the
>> public Internet requires routing it, and while this results in costs
>> to every default-free network in the Internet, there is no system in
>> place to provide settlement of these additional costs, and it is
>> instead handled indirectly by providers through peering negotiations.
> and this is not a problem if you get the space from an rir, only if
> buy it on an open market. cool!
That's right Randy. To recap from last week, what makes routing keep
working under the current paradigm?
1. CIDR -- which provides the basic tools.
2. Top-level aggregation -- which the RIR community-system provided,
and kept flexible over time as technology improved and RIR community
3. Filtering -- which was/is only commercially feasible because of the
top-level aggregation made possible by the RIR community-system.
4. Open entry for new routing service providers, which the arms-length
RIR processes also enabled, and which effectively made aggregation and
filtering "justifiable" and thus palatable to most direct
stakeholders, as well as to the few indirect stakeholders/outside
observer who knew that the system existed and understood the basics of
how it worked.
An uncoordinated market will eliminate (2), which will make (3,4)
impossible, which will cause the current routing paradigm to fail in
Maybe a routing cartel will emerge in time to solve the problem,
without creating new problems for aspiring new entrants and the ever
widening audience of attentive external stakeholders. But that's a big
leap of faith...
More information about the ARIN-PPML