eh, they are aware of the problem, but their solutions are still centralized ones; either preventing de-aggregation altogether, or making the end-user justify the usage, presumably to some central authority.
I mean, it might work out okay; that's pretty much what ARIN does now. I'm just saying, it's not exactly a market-based solution; that document proposes a market in IP addresses, but it largely leaves the routing table as a commons, even if it does propose to regulate that commons in ways that are similar to the way it is being regulated now.
Like I said: markets are not perfect, but what are the alternatives? I think it'll mostly work out ok: as prices go up, it'll push people to get serious about IPv6 and other alternatives.
My point is that the most important resources (routing table slots) are still allocated via informal central planning in your proposed scheme. And that isn't unreasonable; usually if you want a functional market, you need /something/ dealing with the externalities.
In the general case, sure, I like markets, too. It's just that markets deal very poorly with externalities, and I want to make the point that the way most people want to set up a market for IPs, routing table slots are externalities.
There is currently a process for selling IP addresses:
My understanding is that you give the previous owner enough money to make them happy, then you satisfy the requirements that you would have had to satisfy to get ARIN to give you the resources if you were requesting said resources from ARIN directly.
Comments
So with a few rules, you can design a market that works pretty well:
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-091_0077c0...
eh, they are aware of the problem, but their solutions are still centralized ones; either preventing de-aggregation altogether, or making the end-user justify the usage, presumably to some central authority.
I mean, it might work out okay; that's pretty much what ARIN does now. I'm just saying, it's not exactly a market-based solution; that document proposes a market in IP addresses, but it largely leaves the routing table as a commons, even if it does propose to regulate that commons in ways that are similar to the way it is being regulated now.
Like I said: markets are not perfect, but what are the alternatives? I think it'll mostly work out ok: as prices go up, it'll push people to get serious about IPv6 and other alternatives.
My point is that the most important resources (routing table slots) are still allocated via informal central planning in your proposed scheme. And that isn't unreasonable; usually if you want a functional market, you need /something/ dealing with the externalities.
In the general case, sure, I like markets, too. It's just that markets deal very poorly with externalities, and I want to make the point that the way most people want to set up a market for IPs, routing table slots are externalities.
There is currently a process for selling IP addresses:
https://www.arin.net/resources/transfers/index.html
My understanding is that you give the previous owner enough money to make them happy, then you satisfy the requirements that you would have had to satisfy to get ARIN to give you the resources if you were requesting said resources from ARIN directly.