The Mother of all Solutions (Was Class B for Sale or Rent)

John W. Stewart III jstewart at
Sun Mar 9 22:08:13 UTC 1997

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
 > 	economy.
 > 	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 through
 > 		   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.
 > 	Ehud
 > 	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 at 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                                 

More information about the NANOG mailing list