Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

[Scott Huddle <huddle () mci net>]

 Geoff Huston <G.Huston () aarnet edu au> writes
> If you manage to provide a better model for interconnection which
> includes a rational economic model of interaction then, strangely
> enough, you then have a powerful tool you can use to address teh
> technical issue of scaling the routing domain.
>
> i.e. 
>
>   "free transit" is stupid, as Andrew indicates.
>
>   "transit" is possible given a rational economic model of the
>       transit interaction.
>
> In the same way that giving away IP addresses and giving away IP
> routing can only be described as a very bad case of irrational
> behaviour, especially when the underlying resource is under stress as
> it is at present, then I'd also note that giving away transit is
> similarly a case completely irrational behaviour!

Agreed, but doesn't this lead to the religious War On Settlements.  Yakov's
push/pull paper on route announcements coupled with traffic levies
would seem to to address your point.  Do you agree?

> All this points to a desperate need for a more realistic economic
> structure to be used within a number of key aspects of Internet
> infrastructure.

Agreed, what are the forums, though?  There are both techie questions to
be answered as well as hard business case scenarios.  NANOG seem
unlikely to address the former, where the IETF seems ill equipped to
answer the latter.  

-scott

[...] 
> Andrew's comments:
>
> > > Half correct.  Everyone in the area carries full routes for the block.
> > > Everyone outside the area can listen to only the /8 advertisement.
> >
> > So these providers are providing the free transit to their
> > non-customers?
> >
> > This does not make any business sense; it will not happen.
> >     --asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)