> On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> wrote: > I want community members to understand that this is evidence that the market > is a natural conserver of valuable resources.
Help me understand what evidence you see that any market has ever conserved
expensive FIB slots.
> ...and naturally elevates them to a higher and better use.
It seems to me that this is the same fallacy upon which inter-provider QoS ran
aground. Just because something was valuable and expensive to Party A, and
Party A exchanges traffic with Party B, there’s no reason why the same thing
would be valued by Party B, who has their own concerns. Thus, the fact that
Party A buys an address block for a lot of money may make routing that address
block very important to Party A, but that’s independent of Party B’s interest
in receiving that routing announcement or wasting a FIB slot on it. Thus, the
money has been spent, but nothing has been elevated to a higher or better use;
it may in fact not be usable at all, outside the context of needs-based
allocation of FIB slots.
> Thus reducing the actual importance of these “angels-on-the-heads-of-pins”
> discussions about utilization periods or parsing the application of free pool
> allocation language in its application to transfers.
I agree that there’s a lot of cruft that’s built up by people who weren’t
intent upon using concise language in policy development, and who failed to
remove or update language before slathering more over the top of it. However,
that in no way invalidates the basic requirement for regulation to defend the
commons (global routing table size) against the competing interests of
individuals (more smaller prefixes routed).
Both are valuable. They’re naturally opposed interests. Any useful discussion
of either one must be in terms of the trade-off against the other. You’re
discussing only one of the two; only half of an inextricably linked
conversation.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
