FCC and ARIN
On Thursday, February 27, 1997 8:14 PM, Carol Anne Cypherpunk[SMTP:carolann at censored.org] wrote:
@ This makes the most sense since I've started
@ reading this list.
@ Which brings us to this question:
@ What is an IP address really worth?
I have a feeling the market is going to
help determine that in the next few years.
Or, maybe I should say I hope it does...
@ Carol Anne Cypherpunk
@ of censored.org, and censored.web (soon)
@ broadcasting from the mighty
@ 220.127.116.11 (my current number)
@ I can see paying the FCC for this number.
@ I can see paying the Patent and/or
@ Post offices for censored.org (and .web)
I have seen people take both sides of the FCC issue.
They appear to have a recent track record in "auctions"
so I suppose some people feel they would support
market driven allocations.
@ But is this all an attempt to get the routings to kind of
@ be like zipcodes? And arranged so that you can look at
@ an IP and with 99% accuracy know where the machine is?
@ (I can with 66% accuracy now. and I get better with practice)
@ But will we then have "big market" and "small market" IP addresses.
@ Kinda like sports franchises?
@ Or will it be more like cable TV?
In my opinion, many people are trying to acheive the same
thing, or at least I hope. Here is my short-list.
1. Low-cost, high-capability, world-wide communication system.
2. Support for open collaborative environments
3. Non-discriminatory administration policies other than economics
4. User community directed with government endorsement
5. Support for diversity and competition to improve the infrastructure
@ I will see how Minnesota reacts to having control of the *.*.mn.us
@ IP adresses. I'd bet my bottom dollar they want 5 million IP's
@ just for the individual citizenry. We have a 2.4 billion state surplus.
@ Maybe we can use some of it to protect ourselves on the "info highway".
@ And will the routing table be sequential or random numbers?
IP addresses and domains like mn.us are actually decoupled.
Phone numbers and people's names are the same way.
I have mostly suggested the 50 State approach to try to
avoid having all of the Internet resources being piled into
mountains in the obvious places.
Some states already have mountains of IP addresses allocated.
Some have very few.
Since the NSF is the "National" Science Foundation it
might be good for them to make sure the resources
get spread around.
@ Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter. It makes it look
@ more like an accounting chore. Which it really is, anyway.
Yes, if the "subjectivity" in the decision making can be
removed from the system, then it is very clerical.
People seem concerned that if the system is made
so simple a clerk can do the job, then the "wrong"
people will obtain addresses. I find it somewhat ironic
that the current system has huge companies sitting
on huge blocks of unused space, and that is "OK".
Some famous universities have massive allocations
and an ISP across the street gets starved. As a
group ISPs have a very small percentage of the IPv4
space. Of course, I have seen some people openly
state that ISPs are not the "right people".
That seems to be the bottom line...
...who are the "right" people...?
JimFleming at unety.net
JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)