Roeland Meyer wrote:
What we have today is a manufactured dependence on a single upstream provider and no way to multi-home. Even co-lo boils down to single-home dependency. ... It looks like our technical solutions are raising unreasonable barriers to entry for small businesses.
I beg to differ. I presented a _technical_ solution back in '92-93 at IETF -- numbering allocations based on local exchanges. Deering presented another -- numbering based on metropolitan areas. Either eliminated dependence on a single upstream, and made it simple to switch. Instead, we have the non-technical solution -- provider-based allocations. Why? Contrary to Greenwell's assertion, capital does NOT seek a "market based" solution. Successful markets assume competition and low barriers to entry. Capital seeks best return on investment. Best return requires monopoly advantage. Either of our proposals would have improved competition, but competition was not what the large providers wanted. The large providers funded ARIN. The _technical_ solutions required regional cooperation between local providers to carry all local (non-transit) traffic directed to the exchange(s), much as the NSFnet (back when this was the regional-techs list). Such cooperation has been in short supply. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32