On 4/14/2003 at 17:27:20 -0400, Brandon Ross said:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Dave Israel wrote:
There's a lot more available real estate than available v4 address space. That's the biggest one.
Is there? How much address space would be available if it were utilized efficiently by everyone? Once you put a price tag on it, organizations become the models of efficiency in utilization. If you can use NAT, you will, if you can't, you'll only assign unique addresses to users/applications that absolutly require it. If you don't like those options, maybe you'll move to v6. I just don't see a problem here.
Ah, but when you buy address space, are you going to be happy about giving it back when you change providers? Will the provider give you a fair price on selling it back? Do you think sales departments won't insist you buy their address space when you connect? And if you can keep it, it makes the routing table more and more interesting.
Second, groups that make the Internet go aren't necessarily the ones who can afford the address space.
If they can't afford the address space, there's a very good chance it's because they are inefficient and they should be done away with. Besides, I just don't see address space being prohibitively expensive on an open market, as a previous poster pointed out, only a minority of address space is currently announced in the Internet. I'd bet at least half of that isn't used at all, and I'd bet another half of that is unnecessary.
That's a pretty brash thing to say on Merit's mail server. Much of the research and coordination of the Internet is done by research groups and universities. It isn't inefficiency that keeps their available cash for address space down; it is the nature of their business.
But really, you just need the first one: small space. The relatively small pool means that a large company with lots of money could buy the whole ARIN chunk of the Internet.
There are a large number of organizations with more addres space than they need. The chances of any one company buying all the address space and then just sitting on it are nil. Why would their investors allow them to sit on a asset and not make any income on it? They would have to compete with the likes of GE, ATT, MIT, and Genuity for sales of the address space they already hold.
Who said they would just sit on it? Why not make the Internet now "The Internet, Brought To You By Company X?" You need Company X's address space, so you have to provide Company X's services on Company X's operating system? It's this kind of thing that keeps areas of the radio spectrum licensed by the government. -Dave
Who said they would just sit on it? Why not make the Internet now "The Internet, Brought To You By Company X?" You need Company X's address space, so you have to provide Company X's services on Company X's operating system?
This is exactly the biggest problem. It's naive to imagine that this wouldn't happen to some extent. In the real world, there are a number of Company X's who don't play nice.
It's this kind of thing that keeps areas of the radio spectrum licensed by the government.
Although radio spectrum is more divisible than we used to think. Kevin
Thus spake "Dave Israel" <davei@algx.net>
Ah, but when you buy address space, are you going to be happy about giving it back when you change providers? Will the provider give you a fair price on selling it back? Do you think sales departments won't insist you buy their address space when you connect? And if you can keep it, it makes the routing table more and more interesting.
That's already standard practice today, except you're forced to lease PA addresses instead of buying them and selling them back. However, this discussion is really limited to PI space, which has completely different economics.
That's a pretty brash thing to say on Merit's mail server. Much of the research and coordination of the Internet is done by research groups and universities. It isn't inefficiency that keeps their available cash for address space down; it is the nature of their business.
While I'm sure we all value Merit's contributions to the Internet, both past and present, you cannot seriously believe they are even remotely efficient in their use of 35/8 -- nor can one expect them to be without financial incentive. What boggles my mind is they managed to get allocated another 668,424 addresses in CIDR land -- do a whois and see for yourself.
It's this kind of thing that keeps areas of the radio spectrum licensed by the government.
And the govt licenses that spectrum to the highest bidder, plus allows owners to sell spectrum to each other as assets. Pretending the RIRs are even remotely similar is disingenuous. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Sorry, but, the government does _NOT_ auction spectrum space off to the highest bidder in all cases. If they did, amateur radio would be dead, as would FRS, CB, and probably a lot of the part 15 allocations. Owen
It's this kind of thing that keeps areas of the radio spectrum licensed by the government.
And the govt licenses that spectrum to the highest bidder, plus allows owners to sell spectrum to each other as assets. Pretending the RIRs are even remotely similar is disingenuous.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
participants (4)
-
Dave Israel -
Owen DeLong -
sigma＠smx.pair.com -
Stephen Sprunk