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.
