[arin-ppml] Using fees to encourage route aggregation

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps people were ignoring the "fairness" thread?  :-)  Or  
> perhaps, like me, most people generally agree with that particular  
> point, so there's maybe not as much to discuss.  My own thought is  
> that using fees to encourage aggregation (discourage deaggregation)  
> would probably work, but that there isn't a lot of need for doing so  
> just yet.  If we get to the point where multiple networks are having  
> problems with routing table growth that can't be solved through  
> filtering of distant more-specifics, through charging customers for  
> route announcements, and/or through peering agreements, then perhaps  
> someone will resurrect the idea on arin-discuss for the board's  
> consideration.


I don't think most people agree with that particular point.

The RIRs role is NOT to afflict routing policy with their judgment of  
how it should be done.

The RIRs should focus on allocation policies that meet the needs of  
the community and
leave routing issues to those that run routers and the IAB/IETF/IESG/ 
etc.

Setting fees based on disaggregation is a quagmire that would leave  
the RIR staff in
an untenable position. Which view of the routing table would be  
considered the
authoritative reference for disaggregation? Would momentary leaks of  
more specifics
count against someone if they just happened to coincide with the  
billing sweep through
the table? Over what period of time should a prefix have to be  
disaggregated in order
to increase the billing for the prefix? Should the bill increase with  
the amount of time
the route remains in the table? If so, how do you account for  
convergence delay in the
billing process?

Due to scarcity, IPv4 unfortunately made the RIR the point where we  
needed to
adjudicate the balance between two strongly conflicting principles...  
The ability
to issue address space to those who needed (through mechanisms like  
slow-
start, limited time consumption expectancies, etc.) vs. the ability to  
optimize
the routing table.

So far, that tradeoff has been readjusted several times with  
allocation periods
changed, maximum prefix lengths adjusted, etc.  I don't know for  
certain what
the future will hold in this for IPv4, but, it doesn't matter too much  
since the RIRs
won't be issuing IPv4 much past the next 3 or 4 policy cycles anyway.

However, in IPv6, there really is no need for the RIRs to balance  
this.  End users
and ISPs are perfectly capable of developing mechanisms to determine  
what
IP resources from what source are required to meet their needs.  The  
RIRs should
evaluate resource requests on the basis of justified need per the  
policies set
by the community without regard to routing.

Owen