[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?
>
> 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?


For the answer to this question, please check the current status of  
IPv6 deployment.

TV

>> 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