North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Market-based address allocation
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:
=== 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 firstname.lastname@example.org