Well Perry, I basically agree with you. But there is perhaps a reasonable concern that any price which is reasonable to the little guy might be an unfair opportunity for the big guy to corner the little guy out. I know, you have arguments how you hope this won't happen, but then again we're dealing with a rather artificial resource (meaning, more like the breakup of AT&T, going from a non-privatized, regulated system to a purely privatized one, some damage to any potential or idealized free market has already been done so pricing+supply aberrations are thus more possible.) ANYHOW, gosh we've been around this corner before, the obvious suggestion at least for starters is some sort of sliding scale where one is rewarded, somewhat, for being parsimonious or at least matching their needs to their actual business activity. And conversely one is penalized, somewhat, for being unreasonable. Given the address architecture it's not entirely a no-brainer to design such a system. But it could look something like an exponential charge based on length of prefix (after all, it is an exponent), and I'd suggest some negative feedback for holding a lot of long prefixes (that is, hoarding the cheap ones.) Anyhow, it could evolve from there to a simple market kind of thing. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD On March 14, 1996 at 10:51 perry@piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) wrote:
"David R. Conrad" writes:
Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the address space?
If you start charging for food, what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the food?
If you start charging rent for apartments, what would stop deep pocket companies from renting all the apartments?
Perry
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD