Market-based address allocation
Steven M. Bellovin
smb at research.att.com
Wed Apr 30 20:45:29 UTC 2003
In message <3EB03565.1040202 at brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
>
>Bill Nickless wrote:
>
>>
>> As a thought experiment, think of how the IPv4 addressing situation
>> (bogon advertisements, allocations, explosion of routing table sizes,
>> etc) would be different if the IP community treated IP addresses as a
>> commodity.
>
>Actually, your entire argument starts off very poorly. You are stating
>that IP addresses should be treated as a commodity, yet what you are
>really trying to state is that routing advertisements should be treated
>as a commodity. These are two different concepts. If we pay for IP
>addresses, there's still nothing to keep us from advertising longer
>prefixes. If we pay for advertisements, large providers will just work
>it into their peering agreements and then collect money from their
>customers for their adverts.You'd also have to figure out who pays who?
>Do I get paid for every route sent to me? I usually have 120,000+ routes
>sitting in my router. Please send me my money.
>
>If you aren't refering to advertisements, then bogon advertisements,
>hijackings, and route table explosions will still be an issue. Without
>mandating necessity, I'd also point out that there would no longer be
>IPv4 address space available except at outrageous prices for smaller
>networks that wish to multi-home and have their own netblocks.
>
>-Jack
>
>
See http://www.research.att.com/~smb/papers/piara/index.html for a
paper on the subject. (We held a BoF at the IETF many years ago; there
was sufficient pushback that we didn't pursue the question.)
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
More information about the NANOG
mailing list