nanog mailing list archives
Re: Market-based address allocation
From: Bill Nickless <nickless () mcs anl gov>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:26:20 -0500
These two things have to happen at the same time: 1. ISPs start charging for the service of advertising each prefix upstream and/or to peers. 2. Customers can purchase netblocks on an open market.With both #1 and #2, customers can decide (based on financial incentives) whether to
(a) pay for the service of advertising lots of small netblocks, (b) buy "big-enough" netblocks and renumber into them to save on per-advertisement service fees, or (c) use provider-based addressing and bear the risk/costs of renumbering when changing providers.Without #1 above, there's no financial incentive for customers to renumber into better aggregated netblocks. As I understand Randy's argument, this is a flaw in the Internet economic model, because the costs are borne by the service providers but the benefits accrue to other networks' customers.
Without #2 above, it's much harder to put a dollar value on the cost of (b): the price is difficult to determine in advance due to the utilization review uncertainties.
Using my institution (AS 683) as an example, we advertise about seven /16s and a pre-CIDR block of swamp /24s. As much as I would like to aggregate everything into a larger netblock, there are some obstacles that I can't overcome by "community pressure" or "doing the right thing."
I wish I could put dollar figures on the asset valuation of the various netblocks, the capital cost of larger netblocks, and the recurring cost to my institution of making 14 advertisements. Today I can't do that.
At 01:25 PM 5/1/2003 -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Daniel,So, lets say we go ahead a float IP address space and anyone can buy whatever prefix they think need and have the cash for.What happens to the routing tables?The reason the BOF back in '96 was entitled "Pricing of Internet Addresses and Routing Announcements' was that the folks who seriously considered the idea realized that in the IPv4 CIDR world we live in, selling address space without somehow tying those sales into some sort of market for routing prefixes was a recipe for "fun", or at least lots of prefix length filters and subsequently more unhappiness.If someone can figure out how to get the ISPs of the world to participate in a routing prefix market, then it might be worth revisiting this idea. Note that there is nothing stopping establishing a routing prefix market now, so it could be done prior to changing address allocation policies.Rgds, -drc
=== Bill Nickless http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless +1 630 252 7390 PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7 nickless () mcs anl gov
Current thread:
- Re: Market-based address allocation Daniel Golding (May 01)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Eric Gauthier (May 01)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Eric Gauthier (May 01)
- Re: Market-based address allocation David Conrad (May 01)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Bill Nickless (May 01)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Stephen J. Wilcox (May 01)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Daniel Golding (May 02)
- Internet core scale and market-based address allocation Sean M . Doran (May 05)
- Re: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation Bill Nickless (May 05)
- Re: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation bdragon (May 05)
- Re: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation Bill Nickless (May 05)
- Re: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation bdragon (May 05)
- RE: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation David Schwartz (May 05)
- Re: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation bdragon (May 10)
- Re: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation bmanning (May 10)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Bill Nickless (May 01)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Eric Gauthier (May 01)