|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:43:17 -0500 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> To: Bill Nickless <nickless@mcs.anl.gov> Cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030430084348.02c19e70@pop.mcs.anl.gov> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Bill Nickless wrote: > > As a thought experiment, think of how the IPv4 addressing situation > (bogon advertisements, allocations, explosion of routing table sizes, > etc) would be different if the IP community treated IP addresses as a > commodity. Actually, your entire argument starts off very poorly. You are stating that IP addresses should be treated as a commodity, yet what you are really trying to state is that routing advertisements should be treated as a commodity. These are two different concepts. If we pay for IP addresses, there's still nothing to keep us from advertising longer prefixes. If we pay for advertisements, large providers will just work it into their peering agreements and then collect money from their customers for their adverts.You'd also have to figure out who pays who? Do I get paid for every route sent to me? I usually have 120,000+ routes sitting in my router. Please send me my money. If you aren't refering to advertisements, then bogon advertisements, hijackings, and route table explosions will still be an issue. Without mandating necessity, I'd also point out that there would no longer be IPv4 address space available except at outrageous prices for smaller networks that wish to multi-home and have their own netblocks. -Jack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |