Nick Williams nmw at haven.ios.com
Mon Sep 25 16:13:18 UTC 1995

>    From: Nick Williams <nmw at 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'm not arguing in favor of anyone suing any registry, nor am I
threatening to do so myself; I'm merely pointing out that some fellow
out there might have the reasons, resources and incentives to go after
registries in court.

>    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*, &^%[email protected]$*#&^%! 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.

Routes have two costs: they represent IP address space (of which there
is a shortage right now) which is used inefficiently, and they use up
router resources in a menner that's inversely proportional to the amount
of IP address space the route represents. Hence you have two opposing

I'm arguing that economics have to enter the picture for any application
for IP address space a registry receives. ISP/NSPs can deal with some of
theis on their own, but registries are at the root of all IP address
allocations, so therefore they are a good place to look towards for an
injection of economic realities into a process that so far has seemed
inexpensive: obtaining usable IP address space.

Unfortunately you cannot retroactively, unilaterally amend the many
existing contracts between ISPs, NSPs and customers, so we have to look
to charging new entrants only, and old participants when their contracts
come up for renewal. My goal in asking that the registries charge for
their services is: better services, better allocations of IP address
space (i.e. allotion of IP address space to those who are serious about
using it).

>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...

Sure, but such a scheme cannot be implemented right now. How is an
organization going to figure out that one particular /24 can be charged
while another can't be?

>    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?

But the registries don't seem willing to stop considering IP address
space exhaustion as a BIG problem, and I don't blame them. We have two
problems which are interrelated; you can't ignore one and solve the
other, because the one you ignore may become far worse as a result of
your solution.

>Second, even if registries did allocate addresses optimally, what happens when
>those sites move around, something the registries have no control over?

Ah, well, these are new customers to other NSPs, so NSPs can refuse to
take their CIDR holes elsewhere. If these new entrants go directlry to
NAPs, then they are not likely to move, but if they do, then they may
have a hard time getting peers to take their long CIDR holes. Then
again, folk who go to the NAPs end up having few small blocks in the
long run, because they tend to be successful (I hope, maybe I'm wrong?)
and so the registries have less misgivings about giving these /16s
rather than /20s.

>    > "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.

You're right, charging for route announcements is something that has to
happen. I've argued this myself too. But what about the registries
worries wrt IP address space exhaustion?

>	Noel


More information about the NANOG mailing list