Note that I've changed the header Bill, are you asserting that there is, or should be, needs testing of the way ISPs allocate their FIB slots?
> -----Original Message----- > > > > On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > I want community members to understand that this is evidence that the > market is a natural conserver of valuable resources. > > Help me understand what evidence you see that any market has ever > conserved expensive FIB slots. > > > ...and naturally elevates them to a higher and better use. > > It seems to me that this is the same fallacy upon which inter-provider QoS ran > aground. Just because something was valuable and expensive to Party A, and > Party A exchanges traffic with Party B, there’s no reason why the same thing > would be valued by Party B, who has their own concerns. Thus, the fact that > Party A buys an address block for a lot of money may make routing that > address block very important to Party A, but that’s independent of Party B’s > interest in receiving that routing announcement or wasting a FIB slot on it. > Thus, the money has been spent, but nothing has been elevated to a higher or > better use; it may in fact not be usable at all, outside the context of needs- > based allocation of FIB slots. > > > Thus reducing the actual importance of these “angels-on-the-heads-of-pins” > discussions about utilization periods or parsing the application of free pool > allocation language in its application to transfers. > > I agree that there’s a lot of cruft that’s built up by people who weren’t > intent > upon using concise language in policy development, and who failed to remove > or update language before slathering more over the top of it. However, that > in no way invalidates the basic requirement for regulation to defend the > commons (global routing table size) against the competing interests of > individuals (more smaller prefixes routed). > > Both are valuable. They’re naturally opposed interests. Any useful > discussion > of either one must be in terms of the trade-off against the other. You’re > discussing only one of the two; only half of an inextricably linked > conversation. > > -Bill > > > _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
