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

[tvest at eyeconomics.com]

On Oct 16, 2009, at 12:10 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
>> 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?

They are paid voluntarily. They are authorized by community-defined  
policies that were voluntarily enacted. Newer members that joined ARIN  
after the policies were promulgated implicitly buy into previous  
policies as the price of admission, but are then are at their liberty  
to work to change or rescind any policies that they disagree with,  
just like all of the other members.

No doubt the fees are not always paid with equal and abundant joy, but  
in the real world that's not much of an counter-argument. Perhaps some  
people feel oppressed by every rule and law (maybe laws of physics  
too) that they did not unilaterally dictate themselves, but again in  
the real world that doesn't hold up as a very credible benchmark.

> 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 is ARIN, exactly? You either have to mean that the members  
voluntarily embrace this arrangement, and craft polices that define  
how it should be executed, or this is an incoherent statement.

>> 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.

You're confused here Milton. Are you suggesting that the ITU staffers  
dictated the settlement rates?
I think if you check your notes, you'll find that it was the members  
-- i.e., monolithic national PSTNs (the plenipots) that were either  
practically or absolutely indistinguishable from the national telecom  
ministry officials that sat in Geneva. They defined the settlements  
rates, and it was their individual (corporate) private interests,  
rather than the machinations of permanent ITU staffers --  that kept  
the rates high even as technology was starting to bring the actual  
cost of telecom service delivery down by huge increments. At least  
that's how the system was until about 1996, when it started unravel.

I'm glad that that little jab made you feel good, but now that we've  
excavated what you really meant, you really are suggesting that the  
RIRs -- pretty much the only non-router owning entities in the whole  
system -- will define, levy, and collect explicit routing de- 
aggregation fees from the institutions that actually invest in and  
operate routing service platforms? Not that it matters one bit (and  
this is my opinion only), but I don't think that RIR permanent  
staffers would exactly embrace that role -- nor do I think that you  
should expect a rush of support for this idea within the community.  
Give it a try though -- maybe I'll be surprised.


>> 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.

Silly or not, it's nice to end on a happy note for a change -- good  
night!

TV