Class "B" forsale (fwd)

Matt Magri matt at
Sun Mar 9 21:50:00 UTC 1997

Michael Dillon <michael at> wrote:
>randy at (Randy Bush) wrote:
>> Market forces have been shown to be a more efficient mechanism to
>> determine "need" than central planning when no objective and easily
>> measured criteria can be determined.
> With "No objective and easily measured criteria," it would seem to be hard
> to measure efficiency.

The point is that without "objective and easily measured criteria" it
is flat out impossible for central planning to produce anything
approaching an efficient outcome.

> Historically, open markets have worked well sometimes and not worked others.

This is kind of a meaningless statement without some examples. How is
anyone to glean anything from it without some idea of what conditions
you think it will or won't work well under? At any rate, I don't recall
Michael using terms like "worked well", etc. His claim was that it was
"more efficient". I might not like the way it would shake out, but if
certain conditions were to exist (ownership, ability to change prices
easily to match demand, technological alternatives to getting more IP's,
etc.) then the result would be the "most efficient."

> Pre-judging how one might work in IPv4 addresses would seem hubris.

Once again, this statement doesn't really say anything either. Does
this mean that we shouldn't do anything? Any course chosen would
require "pre-judging" by this criteria, after all. If you'd like to
present reasons why you are skeptical about market forces providing an
efficient mechanism then go ahead. Pointing out that Michael (or you,
or I, or anyone) can't predict the future with a 100% accuracy seems...
well, pointless.


More information about the NANOG mailing list