On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...

If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is with 
respect 
to routing table slots.  As it is, we have no real feedback mechanism in the 
present
system, just conventions that are variably enforced depending on relative 
stature of 
the parties having the discussion.  Externalizing the true cost of having a 
prefix 
routed would create a more equitable and fair environment (i.e. knowledge that 
you 
could have any prefix globally routed for a fairly predictable cost, and 
ability to 
weigh the benefits of that versus taking a prefix from your ISP.)  It might 
even 
spur research into various interesting alternatives such routing costs for 
smaller 
scopes (regional, geographic, etc.) and cost implications and technical 
tradeoffs
from various alternative mobility schemes.

That's not to say that establishing a framework for externalizing routing costs 
would 
be easy; it's a complicated and twisted matter, and also fraught with various 
legal &
competitive aspects.  However, it would at least be doing something more than 
crossing 
our fingers and just hoping for the best out of today's "IPv6 prefixes for 
all"...  
Another benefit of such a system (for those fans of market-based approaches) is 
that 
we could better utilize IPv4, rather than the currently implied "/24 is 
routable, /25 
is not" filter-based approach which may not survive the market pressures 
associated 
with IPv4 depletion in any case...

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.  Feel free to ignore this message as desired.

Reply via email to