[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to somecategoryof

[tvest at eyeconomics.com]

On Oct 15, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> Rather then get wraped up in an ideoligical debate about such systems
>> which is likely unresolvable, can we admit that under the right
>> circumstances and with the proper implimentation in place EITHER  
>> some form
>> of market-based or needs-based system COULD be made to function
>> effectively for the allocation of IP Address Space?
>>
>> If that is the case, then perhaps the discussion could be moved to  
>> focus
>> on specific advantages and disadvantages of specific  
>> implimentations of
>> such systems for the intended purpose?
>
> Thanks for your intervention, Chris. That's exactly where I've been  
> trying to move. In that regard I find it interesting that despite  
> the constant worrying about route aggregation, the proposal I made  
> to use RIR fees to encourage aggregation (or "tax" deaggregation)  
> has not attracted a single comment. People seem more interested in  
> the broad ideological classifications than in assessing specific  
> proposals.

What part would you like people to comment on -- your premises, the  
idea itself, or your recommendation that it not be adopted at this  
point?

1. The very notion of justifying a much more restrictive routing  
policy (even in part) in order to make it easier to have a more  
liberal address trading regime -- for IPv6 no less -- is both deeply  
misguided and absolutely self-defeating.

2. The policy idea itself is fatally ambiguous. Are you suggesting  
that network operators embrace this plan voluntarily, or be subjected  
to it by some external authority? The membership of this mailing list  
includes the vast majority of ARIN address-holding network operators,  
who typically have no problem at all speaking up when they like a  
policy proposal -- so if it's the former, then the silence is your  
answer. Don't let it make you feel special however -- silence is the  
same response accorded to all policy ideas that meet with zero  
enthusiasm. And if imposition by fiat is the plan, then this is the  
wrong forum for promoting it.

3. Who sets the fees? Who collects the fees? How would they be  
distributed? Who counts the level of de-aggregation, where, using what  
methodology? If the routing service providers themselves, how would  
they arrive at a mutually agreeable price/distribution? Why would this  
be any easier now than in the past, c. 1993, 1995? If anyone else, why  
should routing service providers abide that imposition when it's their  
infrastructure that's being encumbered? Even if all of the above  
questions can be answered, what would prevent the routing fees from  
becoming an increasingly artificial and arbitrary drag on the  
Internet's growth potential, just as fixed international telecom  
settlement rates ultimately came to be a deadweight impeding the  
extension of more affordable communications services to more potential  
telecom services users?

4. If the adoption of any of the above would involve or require  
decisions made by any less that 100% unanimous acclaim by all network  
service providers (at all times into the indefinite future), what  
would distinguish this idea from any of the competing sustainability  
proposals that you have consistently criticized (e.g., capital  
infrastructure-related eligibility criteria, a.k.a. "needs-based"  
allocation requirements)?

5. The closing point "not recommending" the adoption of the idea is  
excellent, but it should stand alone, without any further  
qualifications.

TV