Re: [RRG] Moving forward... IPv4 now, IPv6 less urgent and perhaps more ambitious

[David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>]

Bill,

On Jun 10, 2008, at 3:08 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Please excuse my temporary insanity while I step way outside the box.

Don't worry, been there myself.  The view is nice, but watch that  
first step... :-)

> Set up some sort of central route policy authority, CRPA.

"First, boil the ocean."  :-)

As I responded to someone else privately, back when this was discussed  
in PIARA and CIDRD, the sticking point was generally along the lines  
of none of the big players were interested in jumping into something  
that required cooperation with competitors when they could just as  
easily spend money to upgrade their routers (with the possibility that  
their competitors couldn't and thus would cease to be competitors).   
To get something like this to work, you need to have some sort of  
enforcement mechanism, which generally implies governmental entities.   
One could argue that the RIRs could be the enforcer, but no one (at  
the time) felt it a good idea to give the RIRs that much power over  
routing.

I don't think things have changed all that much in this respect  
(although perhaps with the RPKI stuff...)

> With such a system in place, it's only a matter of time before folks
> start filtering on RIR minimums and/or filtering distant prefixes
> based on their presence or absence from CRPA.

Without the CRPA, you'll get this anyway as ISPs act to protect their  
own infrastructure.  I'm not sure this is a desirable outcome.  You  
can either make people pay for their use of the commons or figure out  
how to reduce the impact of use of the commons.  Routing settlements  
is the former.  I believe a better choice going forward is the latter.

Regards,
-drc


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg