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

[Milton L Mueller]

> 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.

The aggregation fee idea had nothing to do with address trading but was intended to make it easier to liberalize address allocation. 

> 2. Are you suggesting
> that network operators embrace this plan voluntarily, or be subjected
> to it by some external authority?

I answer this question with more questions: 

Do network operators pay ARIN fees voluntarily or are they subjected to it by some external authority? 

Assuming that such a system was effective in reducing route table bloat, would network operators benefit from that? Are network operators capable of funding a policy that promotes a collective good? 

> 3. Who sets the fees? Who collects the fees? 

ARIN, ARIN. Just as they do now. 

> Who counts the level of de-aggregation, where, using what
> methodology? 

We toyed with various ideas, but as I wrote in response to Owen this is an open and interesting issue. But not one that seems inherently insoluble. Note that the CIDR report publishes daily summaries that purport to show what percentage gain in aggregation various networks could attain if they were properly aggregated.

http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ 

> what would prevent the routing fees from
> becoming an increasingly artificial and arbitrary drag on the
> Internet's growth potential

"Dang gummint bureaucrats" - it does my heart good to see you moving in this direction, Tom. 

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

Not only have I led you into Gingrichian rhetoric but now I have you praising my report in public. I think I'll call it a day. 

Bye,
MM