[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] Renumbering...
|Yes, Tony. I followed you there, and tried to address it when I said
|that there is no business case for the large end user to renumber so it
|just isn't going to happen.
Well, the last time I checked, the Internet was still something of a
cooperative model, wherein the behavior of others does affect us. In
particular, if we continue on our forward path, it seems pretty much
inevitable that the cost of Internet access is going to increase to pay for
the swamp. That will result in increased fees to end-users.
In short, we all pay for the 'net.
Now, if those increases in access fees don't result in a business case to
renumber, then you are correct and there will be some other solutions.
However, if those fees are sufficiently steep, and the alternatives
sufficiently painful, there will be a sufficient business case for some.
|I fault the IETF (and RRG) for consistently failing to recognize some
|exceedingly elementary economics: if you want to stay in business, then
|you don't waste money on needless non-business expenses. Therefore, if
|anybody is going to renumber, it will be an organization that has a
|positive business case to do so, such as an ISP.
Which will then pass along the costs. Perhaps you might want to understand
all of the interactions in the economic solution, because there are many
interactions here that will have a variety of economic repurcussions. The
issue is not so black and white, in the long run.
|Let's change topics slightly to talk a bit more about elementary
|economics. End users pay ISPs for their Internet connectivity. It is
|therefore the ISP's responsibility to deliver Internet connectivity. If
|they can't, then they will go out of business. ISPs are therefore
|motivated to eventually solve the Internet scaling problem -- whether
|publicly or privately -- because they know that if they don't deliver
|effective Internet connectivity, then the end users will use some other
|ISP or, worse case, develop alternative marketplaces that exclude them.
|Only a suicidal ISP would dare to suggest that a large end
|as part of an ISP solution because that would negatively differentiate
|themselves from their competitors and they would consequently lose
|market share, perhaps insurmountably.
If you accept this premise, then you implicitly empower the ISP to apply
whatever solution it sees fit. One alternative is to raise prices
(arbitrarily and unilaterally?). Another is to use alternate technology
(e.g., NAT) to renumber your site semi-transparently for you. Are those
alternatives that you're willing to accept? And does that hold true for all
other end-sites as well?
ISPs are a business too, and driving them all out of business doesn't help.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.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