[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 Proposal Accepted (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Fri Oct 29 16:17:17 CEST 2010
> And even there're some economical implications, the proposal itself > isn't primary about money and cost of IPv4 address, this is technical > proposal. It's about address distribution to new and existing LIRs. As long as addresses are scarce, there is no such thing as a purely technical allocation proposal. Any allocation mechanism involves a competitive relationship among LIRs for available resources, and any policy distributes costs and benefits among the contending parties. > And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space > for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over > IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free > allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible. I agree with this concern, but you seem unaware of the possibilities of strategic behavior by LIRs. Consider: LIR 1, an incumbent, proves it needs a /16 to meet demand caused by growth in the number of its existing customers. LIR 2, a startup, also proves it needs a /16 to start up Your policy privileges any actor in the category LIR 2 and penalizes actors in category LIR 1. Question 1: why are the customers of LIR 2 more important than the customers of LIR 1? Question 2: why wouldn't LIR 1 form a new company and call it a startup to get privileged access to addresses? Or, might LIR 3, LIR 1's long standing competitor, form a new LIR to gain an advantage in the competition for resources? One could argue for your position by noting that LIRs who already have some blocks of ipv4 are in a position to economize on and/or NAT those addresses, whereas an ISP without any can't do that. That provides some answer to Q1. But it doesn't deal with the problems around Q2.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 Proposal Accepted (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]