On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 12:39:36PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: > > Is this just another form of a registry? > > Yes. However, I think that it's more likely to succeed than our > previous registry ideas because the addresses come from the > aggregated, global unicast address space. Thus, there can be no > arguments about who owns what addresses. If I buy a prefix from > Earthlink, it comes from Earthlink's address block. Outsiders can't > even tell it's not a normal prefix (which is a blessing and a curse), > let alone state that they also purchased the prefix from some other > ISP.
With current RIR rules, *no* ISP can give an absolute guarantee that it's prefix couldn't, at one point, be pulled off. So, it seems to me that creating implicit assumption that addresses allocated today from RIR's are "magical" and "will never be revoked", and "the ISP can give legal guarantees the prefix will never clash". It seems to me that *practically*, recurring fees are a feature. If an ISP goes bankrupt, some other ISP actually has an incentive to obtain its business and the prefix -- in hope of getting a share of those recurring fees :-). Otherwise, the prefix could just rot and be returned to RIR (for example). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
