Internet Multi-Homing Problems: Explanations from Economics

Conference paper


Companies seeking to ensure that their Internet connection is resilient often purchase services from multiple providers. This leads them inexorably towards having their IP address range visible in the global routing table, increasing the resource usage of every Internet router. Since this is essentially ‘free’, yet impacts the cost and stability of every router in the world, this is a classic ‘tragedy of the commons’. There is little prospect of change in the IPv4 world, but there is a chance to fix the problem as IPv6 is rolled out. Unfortunately, SHIM6, the engineering solution chosen to solve this issue in IPv6, will only be effective if universally adopted, and there are no short-term incentives to prefer SHIM6 over a duplication of the IPv4 arrangements. Incentives could be artificially introduced by requiring payment for adding multi-homed address space to the global routing table — a naïve estimate of the actual cost being $77 000 per routing prefix. However, it would be almost impossible to ensure the substantial revenues involved are correctly redistributed to those bearing the costs.


Autonomous System Address Space Internet Service Provider Border Gateway Protocol Host Identity Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abley, J., Black, B., Gill, V.: Goals for IPv6 site-multihoming architectures. IETF RFC 3582 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., Gill, V.: IPv4 multihoming practices and limitations. IETF RFC 4116 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anonymous: Why your anti-spam solution won’t work (2004). http://craphound. com/spamsolutions.txtGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arkko, J., van Beijnum, I.: Failure detection and locator pair exploration protocol for IPv6 multihoming. IETF RFC 5534 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bagnulo, M.: Hash-based addresses (HBA). IETF RFC 5535 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bates, T., Smith, P., Huston, G.: CIDR report. http://www.cidr-report.orgGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bu, T., Gao, L., Towsley, D.: On characterizing BGP routing table growth. Computer Networks 45(1), 45–54 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hardin, G.: The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859), 1243–1248 (1968)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huston, G.: The 16-bit AS number report. asn16/Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huston, G.: Analyzing the Internet BGP routing table. Internet Protocol Journal 4(1), 2–15 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Infonetics Research: Great year for service provider router market, but 4Q showed signs of downturn. Press Release (2009). router-switch-market-highlights.aspGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lear, E.: Things multihoming in IPv6 (MULTI6) developers should think about. IETF RFC 4219 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leeka, S., Turnbulla, P., Naudé, P.: How is information technology affecting business relationships? Results from a UK survey. Industrial Marketing Management 32(2), 119–126 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meng, X., Xu, Z., Zhang, B., Huston, G., Lu, S., Zhang, L.: IPv4 address allocation and the BGP routing table evolution. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 35(1), 71–80 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nordmark, E., Bagnulo, M.: Shim6: Level 3 multihoming shim protocol for IPv6. IETF RFC 5533 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ozment, A., Schechter, S.E.: Bootstrapping the adoption of Internet security protocols. In: Fifth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security WEIS2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savola, P., Chown, T.: A survey of IPv6 site multihoming proposals. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Telecommunications (ConTEL 2005). IEEE, pp. 41–48 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R., Beame, C., Eisler, M., Noveck, D.: Network file system (NFS) version 4 protocol. IETF RFC 3530 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sillince, J.A.A., Macdonald, S., Lefang, B., Frost, B.: Email adoption, diffusion, use and impact within small firms: A survey of UK companies. International Journal of Information Management 18(4), 231–242 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vohra, Q., Chen, E.: BGP support for four-octet AS number space. IETF RFC 4893 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations