From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Feb 24 22:37:46 1996 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA16385 for chat-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 22:37:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sasami.jurai.net (root@sasami.jurai.net [205.218.122.51]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA16379 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 22:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from winter@localhost) by sasami.jurai.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) id AAA07204; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 00:37:42 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 00:37:41 -0600 (CST) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" X-Sender: winter@sasami To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: buying IP addresses In-Reply-To: <199602250127.RAA03320@freefall.freebsd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 24 Feb 1996, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > new draft rfc is out proposing selling IP addresses > memtions that there is dscussion of selling rouing table > entries as well (BGP) > > new world? > > ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cidrd-mktbased-alloc-00.txt Does anyone remember all the fuss about CIX a while ago? Since address allocation for 3rd tier customers is usually out of their providers address space, they are, in a sense, being "charged for". Since the large backbone providers SHOULD be covering their costs by charging their customers, routing entries are, in a sense, being "charged for". Now, if you charge for routing entries, will EVERYONE who is carring a full BGP routing table get a bit of the take? Seems only fair. :) Since I'm reading the draft, I'd like to quote and comment on a few things. (from section on, second paragraph) Assignees do not pay for the numbers they receive. The InterNIC itself is subsidized by the NSF. This panel is supposed to propose methods of making the InterNIC self-supporting. I propose to remove one of the functions of the InterNIC registration services to a free market, leaving a much restricted function that will be less costly to run. --- Now wait a minute. The entire goal of this draft (or so it seems at this point) is to make the "NSF subsidized InterNIC" self-supporting. I thought their NSF money ran out and they started charging for domain registration. What happened to all that cash they were supposed to rake in? :) ... Ok, having read the draft, I think I need to read it again. :) A very interesting idea, this money as incentive for optomizing address space. I think they have it all wrong though. They need to charge MORE for routing small address space and LESS for large. I think I'm going to mail a request to the InterNIC for an /18 now. :) Have a good one. | Matthew N. Dodd | winter@jurai.net | http://www.jurai.net/~winter | | Technical Manager | mdodd@intersurf.net | http://www.intersurf.net | | InterSurf Online | Have you rewired your dmarc today? YOU WILL! |