Market-based address allocation
nickless at mcs.anl.gov
Thu May 1 21:26:20 UTC 2003
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)
(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
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:
>So, lets say we go ahead a float IP address space and anyone can buy
>whatever prefix they think need and have the cash for.
>What happens to the routing tables?
>The reason the BOF back in '96 was entitled "Pricing of Internet Addresses
>and Routing Announcements' was that the folks who seriously considered the
>idea realized that in the IPv4 CIDR world we live in, selling address
>space without somehow tying those sales into some sort of market for
>routing prefixes was a recipe for "fun", or at least lots of prefix length
>filters and subsequently more unhappiness.
>If someone can figure out how to get the ISPs of the world to participate
>in a routing prefix market, then it might be worth revisiting this
>idea. Note that there is nothing stopping establishing a routing prefix
>market now, so it could be done prior to changing address allocation policies.
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 nickless at mcs.anl.gov
More information about the NANOG