nanog mailing list archives
Re: 206.82.160.0/22
From: jnc () ginger lcs mit edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 95 18:53:30 -0400
From: Nick Williams <nmw () haven ios com> If a registries' actions or lack thereof hurt someone else's business they may end up being liable in court for it Oh, great, let's put the registries out of business. I mean, who needs the aggravation, and the threat of being sued? I urge registries to consider charging for their address space delegation services This is absolutely not the solution. This still does nothing to slow the growth of the routing tables, which is the *real problem*, &^%!@$*#&^%! I mean, how is it going to stop me moving from provider A to provider B and wanting to take my addresses with me if I had to pay for the addresses? The only charging scheme that I can see working is to charge people for advertising routes, with the charge related to the scope over which the advertisement is seen. That way, there's a direct relationship between the amount of resources consumed, and the amount charged, which is utterly fair. Note that if you have a "fully" "portable" address (i.e. one advertised over a global scope), your monthly bill will go up as the Internet gets larger, under this scheme... If registries can make decent allocation decisions ... then I argue that routing table growth will be curbed and that IPv4 address space utilization effeciency will rise. First, you're talking about two completely separate problems. Let's keep address space utilization out of it for now, OK? Second, even if registries did allocate addresses optimally, what happens when those sites move around, something the registries have no control over? > "Sorry, we are only able to provide you with partial Internet service > at the moment because Sprint doesn't like the addresses we assigned you". It is costly, as the solution is to become a client of Sprint. So, everyone, can we find a solution? That may solve it for Sprint, but suppose you have the same problem with otehr major providers? Do you have to get a link to each of them? When does this cease to become distinguishable (costwise) for charging for routes - actually, the latter would probably be less expensive. Noel
Current thread:
- Re: Authority over IANA & IP #s was Re: 206.82.160.0/22, (continued)
- Re: Authority over IANA & IP #s was Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Hans-Werner Braun (Sep 22)
- Re: Authority over IANA & IP #s was Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Gordon Cook (Sep 22)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Kai (Sep 22)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 John Riordan (Sep 23)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Nick Williams (Sep 23)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 John Riordan (Sep 23)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Sean Doran (Sep 23)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Hans-Werner Braun (Sep 23)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Ehud Gavron (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Dave Siegel (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Ehud Gavron (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Tony Li (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Nick Williams (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 David Conrad (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Guy Middleton (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Sean Doran (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Sean Doran (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Geoff Huston (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 26)
(Thread continues...)