[arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses

[Tom Vest]

On Oct 6, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> crock.  whether i get the address space i need from an rir or the  
> market
> it's the same address space and i announce it.

Maybe that would be true, if it had any real-world referent -- but it  
doesn't.
You get what you "need" from the RIR community-system, by definition,  
the definition created and adopted and refined by *you* and your  
industry peers.

You don't get what you need from a market; you get whatever *you* can  
pay for.

Maybe that's nothing at all, maybe that's something that good enough  
for you, but will be punishing and non-sustainable for your peers --  
or maybe it'll be something that, purely by coincidence, is good for  
you and also sustainable in the aggregate. But no one's going to care  
about that -- because the "the community" is either a failure or a  
myth or a scam, right? That's why it doesn't even merit consideration  
in planning for address transfers, right?

> and if you think that, three years from now, the rirs will have larger
> blocks to sell than the open market, please share what you're smoking.

Randy, if you think anyone anywhere will have "large blocks" "to sell"  
in free pool exhaustion +3 years time, then I need a hit of whatever  
you're on.
And if you're willing to toss out the model of community self- 
governance for a paltry 2-3 years of extra profits and/or marginal  
convenience for the luckiest and/or best-bankrolled institutions of  
the moment, at the expense of everyone else for the rest of time, then  
I'll just say that I do not share your priorities.

> and perhaps you have not read any of the routing table analyses.  we
> have already lost the routing table battle.  it's over 50% crap.

You're suffering from the counterfactual fallacy. Maybe a /24 looked  
like certain crap a decade ago. Maybe the full routing table  
deaggregated to /24s would be unsustainable. Now ask yourself: why is  
it that we don't have a full routing table deaggregated to /24s or  
worse today -- and refer to prev. message (2), copied again below.

So we should all make that leap of faith? Why?

TV

> On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Tom Vest wrote:
>>
>
> 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  
> practices changed.
> 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  
> short order.
>
> 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...
>
> TV