I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

[Sascha Luck]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:49:29PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:27:44PM +0000, Sascha Luck wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:57:22PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>> >That's actually what we try in RIPE land - tack a heap of paperwork
>> >to a PI network, and a yearly fee.  Not high enough to seriously impact
>> >larger enterprises, but annoying enough to drive away "barbershop sized
>> >businesses".
>>
>> And this is what will ultimately turn around and bite you in the arse
>> since it is blatantly anticompetitive and thus illegal. I hope I'll see
>> that day soon.
>
>So what's your approach?  Close down the Internet?  Abandon PI?  Give
>every ISP out there the money to sustain 4 billion routes?

If there is a problem at all, it is a technical one. (I'm not convinced 
there is, 329k routes today and the internet is still not dead.)

Spend a fraction of the resources used trying to protect Big Telco's 
investments on R&D for a new DFZ routing protocol and this could be solved 
long before any hard limits are reached.

>(It's no more anticompetitive, btw, than charging for gasoline - those
>who find it too expensive to use their car can use a bicycle.

If petrol price was artifically inflated to an extent that only 
$large_enterprise could afford it, those responsible would be burned 
alive - and rightly so.
Besides, you don't have to spend weeks convincing the attendant that you are
using your tankful for legitimate purposes. This "policy" is *explicitly* 
designed to favour Big Telco who has a legal/compliance department to deal 
with that BS. 

> Having >a policy that says "if you have less than 500 employees, you MUST NOT
> have a routing table slot" - now *that* would be anticompetitive) 

Effectively, 2007-01 does precisely that. You admitted as much yourself:
"Not high enough to seriously impact larger enterprises, but annoying 
enough to drive away "barbershop sized businesses""

rgds,
s.