[arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Paul Morrison
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:45 PM
> To: 'PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist
> 
> 
> On 6/9/2008 2:39 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Robin, the problem here is summarized by the old Star Trek 
> quote "The 
> > needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
> and
> On 6/9/2008 10:32 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > If Brian just WANTS a portable block of IPv6 because he thinks it 
> > would be "cool to have" or that it would make him "special" 
> then I'm 
> > sorry, but the Internet has been a commercial network for over a 
> > decade now, we really don't want a bunch of small fry 
> experimenters on 
> > it anymore.  He needs to do what everyone else does and work within 
> > the system and get his numbering from someone larger.  Or 
> if he must 
> > experiment, then he can go to work for some larger network, 
> where his 
> > experimenting will be supervised by someone more knowledgeable.
> >   
> So make up your mind already! Is the Internet a commercial network, 
> closed to garage do it-your-selfers and future innovators as 
> you argue, 
> or some kind of communal resource, shepherded by the wise old 
> sages of 
> the Internet for the benefit of the unwashed (but TCP/IP clothesline 
> dried) masses??
> 

It is both.  It is a commercial network that is shepherded by the
wise old sages of the Internet.

What you (apparently) fail to realise is the enormous amount of
money those wise old sages threw into getting the Internet rolling.

Someone complaining about a thousand bucks today for getting an
IPv6 block?  HAH!  I've spent more on voice-grade
MODEMS for personal use over the years than the computer your posting
from cost you.

$1K?  HAH!  That's CHEAP!  For an experimenter.

> I detect more than just a little sanctimonious BS here. 
> You're telling 
> one person wanting portable v6 addresses to shut up and go 
> home, because 
> the Internet is the big leagues now.
> But then you're whining about NAT and the needs of the many.  Well if 
> the Internet is a commerce and business driven enterprise, then this 
> thing called The Market will decide how/when/if IPv6 resolves 
> things - 
> to all the little guys stuck with NAT or address space 
> shortage - tough 
> luck. The needs of the many only matter when they're spending money. 
>

Once more a person confused on how private businesses use publically
funded infrastructure to make a living.

There is not a commercial market in the world that isn't HEAVILY
dependant on government involvement.  And as more and more of the
world's information becomes available on the Internet, the Internet
is becoming one of those rare things where the "higher ideals" of 
equal access to knowledge for all people, which the old guard
always wanted, just happens to also be in tune with the commercial
needs of faster and more complete communication to all people.

Neither this ideal, nor the need of faster and more extensive 
communication, is served by limiting the growth of the Internet
to all people, all places.

Pushing IPv4 is pushing a system that once IPv4 runout happens,
feudalizes the very structure of the Internet.  You are now
creating a network where those who were on stay on, those who
weren't, cannot get on.

You are also halting the ability of commercial entities to reach
customers who are "fenced out" and cannot obtain IPv4 because there
isn't any more of it.

In short, it's short term gain that costs a lot more over the
long term than you gain now.

If your in favor of continuing IPv4 past runout, and not
agressively moving to IPv6, your in favor of keeping the US
social Security system as it stands now, where current workers
incur ever larger future liabilities.  It's exactly the same
principle.
 
> On the other hand, if the community needs are to count for anything, 
> IPv6 address portability ought to be factored in precisely to 
> take care 
> of the little guys, early adopters, and those who've learned 
> from IPv4 
> experience. If there are any lessons from the early days of 
> IPv4, it's 
> that if you got portable IPv4 space early on, you didn't get held 
> hostage by service providers,


The hands down biggest way that people were held hostage by service
providers is because they used public IP numbering internally, and
in an IPv4 address, the address itself carries both host-specific
info (which is the same from subnet to subnet) and network-specific
info (which changes from provider to provider)

That changed with the advent of NAT.

It also changes with the advent of IPv6 because the hosts don't need
to be numbered with network-specific info.

Search the list archives on renumbering if you don't recall that discussion.

> didn't have to jump through address 
> justification bureaucracy because of someone else's design and policy 
> decisions, and you were given the chance to implement your network 
> redundancy/multi-homing properly with BGP (again without 
> being beholden 
> to any service provider).
>

BGP as a protocol cannot work if every host on the Internet had
a separate routing slot.  This is NOT an IPv6 issue.  It is a BGP
issue.  However just because BGP cannot work that way does not
mean that large networks cannot work that way.

Consider the world's VISA/MasterCard credit card network.  At
any given instant in time, ANY visa number on ANY credit card
could be swiped through ANY machine ANYWHERE in the world
to pay for something.

Yet, that network operates fine.  Thus, it's possible to build
a large network where there's no commonality in IP addressing.
So, quit blaming IPv6 for this - if you think it's important,
then figure out how VISA does it and adapt the concept to
the Internet.
 
Ted