hang on there
while i'm actually *not* necessarily against your proposal for
providers to "just take over," i do think you're being a bit
rash. specifically, if you want to do something like this,
why not actually propose the *way* that the "seized" addresses
would be allocated such that your proposal results in a *less*
chaotic future? for example, why not try a test run of some
of the market-based approaches others have suggested? the most
promising one, in my opinion, is scott huddle's proposal for a
market for both addresses and routing table slots; registries
(which cover the address part) would simply record who has
what address while the providers (and whatever other third-
party businesses which might spring up) would deal with the
routing slot part. this assumes certain mechanisms within
bgp (or some other ~routing protocol) to reserve slots (kind
of like an RSVP for routing [as opposed to forwarding]), but
i think some of the direct implications, as well as some of
the fallout, would be very good and would show the internet
maturing as a service. i also think it would help technically
by forcing us to answer the question: "given a time and a
technology, what does 'full' mean for a routing table?"
in other words, if you're gonna take over the world, don't
just do more of the same...
just my US$0.02
> Let me add a word to Brett's comments. This IS a world-scale
> If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog),
> decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to
> it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or
> be able to change it.
> Here's the Ehud Scenario:
> 1. Tomorrow Paul Vixie gets a pirate hair up his dec alpha
> and puts in 64.in-addr.arpa. through 126.in-addr.arpa.
> in F.
> 2. We start assigning nets from this block (64/8-126/8).
> 3. We start routing to this block (ok, I don't own a backbone
> yet, but let me use "we" meaning nanog for now
> Is this unlawful? No. There's no law about announcing routes,
> nor about delegating them in private internets. For practical
> purposes, NANOG members form a private internet.
> Is this unethical? Some would say 'Sure, only the InterNIC and
> IANA can assign IP addresses.' Some tell me this thinking is
> obsolete. Jim Fleming would salivate, and Karl Deninger would
> laugh. Well, maybe.
> Is this impractical? I dunno. I figure we could bribe Paul with
> $ 2000 per assignment regardless of size (after all, two NS entries
> are all the same cost). After about 52 /24s, he'd double his
> yearly retainer income (all figures guesses with no real basis)
> and probably be able to retire to Caymans. (That's a Brett Scenario).
> Oh yeah, it's my idea, so I want anyone who gets an allocation from
> this scheme to send me a bottle of single-malt Scotch.
> Let me know if I've left something out.
> p.s. If I've pissed off anybody in this post, send me a private
> note via us mail. Be sure to include a bottle of single malt
> Scotch or your note will be returned. Just like email to admin@cr
> >So that I'm not misunderstood let me say this:
> >1: I do not neccessarily agree with the sale of IPs, personally, I don't
> >think its a good idea
> >2: This is a real world economy now, outdated academic practices which are
> >currently being enforced are as wrong as the sale of IPs.
> >3: Wether you, ARIN, or anyone else likes it or not, IPs are for all intent
> >and purposes a resellable commodity, otherwise ARIN et all can (ala Jim
> >Flemming) be called on as being a Monopoly.
> >4: The simple fact of the matter is that the RFCs are not at any time, the
> >law of the land. They are at best guidelines and good ideas set down for
> >others to follow, but there is no rule stating that you _must_ follow them.
> >5: Before you start chasing wild geese selling Class B address space I
> >suggest you go back and check on all those folks that got space long before
> >there were any 'restrictions and justifications'. I have no doubt that ther
> >is a veritable feast of IPs sitting unused at MIT, USC, and other such
> >institutions that would be better used elsewhere instead of sitting in a
> >corner like a dusty grad student.
> >6: Finally and most importantly, stop pretending you still live in the worl
> >of happy academia where everyone is willing to follow the rules you set dow
> >just because you're the proffessor and they're the student. This just does
> >not work anymore, you may scoff at people like Jim Flemming but for each on
> >you knock down there is another one to learn from his mistakes and take his
> >place. Do not pretend you can sit idle and call people who don't fall in
> >line behind you names so that you can sit back in your dusty chair and
> >pretend nothing is wrong. The internet as a whole is growing at an unthough
> >of pace and your failure to keep up will not be fixed by being tight assed
> >and making it harder on those that follow. Eventually someone else will tak
> >the forefront and throw you off your high horse like yesterdays newspaper.
> >You purport to be leaders of the internet, then its about time you acted
> >like it and start to solve the problems instead of trying to make the
> >problems go away by being ignorant of reality.
> >[-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net)
> >[-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas
> >[-] 713-467-7100