On 28 Nov 2004, at 19:18, David Robb wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Ewen McNeill wrote:
(a) scarcity: the number of possible IP addresses
(4 billion) is
less than the number of possible domain names (37 ** 63 per name
I'd hope that instead of using an economic disincentive to stop
people from using up large amounts of IP space, the system of having to
justify your IP usage would be sufficient.
I think that's naive: telling lies is cheap, and when you encourage
people to tell lies by removing the economic disincentive to apply, the
cost of telling what's a lie and what isn't goes up.
APNIC isn't operated on a for-profit basis, as far as I know. They have
costs, which means they need an income from somewhere. The fees are
determined by the policy, which the members set. So there's an argument
to say that APNIC members are paying exactly what they want to pay.
As has been pointed out by
others, there are number of organisations sitting on significant IP
When you figure out the mechanism to change the terms under which
resources were allocated long before APNIC ever existed, you should let
them know. Be sure to remember that the mechanism probably needs to
work in every legal jurisdiction on the planet.
(b) impact on
other people's systems: a DNS delegation just sits
on a couple of DNS servers in a corner, minding its own business,
until someone happens to ask about it; a prefix advertised into
the global routing table ends up occupying space in every router
the world with a "full table" and being shuttled around between
But with none of this money that is paid to APNIC being shared amongst
of the router owners, I don't really see this as a viable argument.
I don't understand the preoccupation with money; the fees that APNIC
receive are used to pay their operating expenses.
APNIC have a duty to act responsibly. An assignment policy which caused
massive increase in state bloat in the DFZ would not be responsible --
and furthermore, would probably result in widespread filtering of the
prefixes assigned on that basis, rendering the addresses useless
(c) volume: a
block of IP addresses consists of multiple addresses;
US$1250/year mark, that's over 1000 usable addresses. If you were
to get 1000 $20 domain names, it'd cost more than US$1250/year :-)
But since an IP address isn't an individually advertisable/usable
and only a block of IPs is, wouldn't it be better to compare a block
addresses with a domain name?
There is nothing to stop anybody advertising a single IP address to
anybody. The problem is getting people to listen.